While some may refer to them as “independent” medical exams (IMEs), plaintiffs’ attorneys know them for what they are: “defense” medical exams (DMEs). Opposing counsel will allege that a DME is necessary to level the playing field or even give “limited” access for their own experts to survey your client. In reality, defense counsel selects and pays the retained expert, who (subject to Rule 26) can confer with defense counsel confidentially and is not responsible for your client’s well-being. This leaves the potential for damage and should be challenged to protect your TBI client’s physical, mental, and emotional health.

Join trial attorneys Maxey Scherr and Robert Collins in this brain injury CLE to learn:

• Methods for researching the DME testing and examiner 
• Ways to challenge possible bias
• Strategies for using Rule 35 of the FRCP to create safeguards necessary for brain-injured clients, including limiting the scope, length of the exam, and methods used 
• The literature behind the exams that highlights the outdated, biased, or unscientific methods typically used in DMEs
• The relevant case law and medical authority

Every effort must be made to protect TBI victims from unjust DMEs. These DMEs can have severe implications that may unfairly prejudice plaintiffs. Learn how you can better protect your clients and help make this discriminatory practice obsolete.

Click here for Access Instructions for On Demand Programs.

Each user must register individually as they will need their own login to access the program and comply with CLE requirements. 

Need accreditation in another jurisdiction?  Fill out this form and note Course No. 250211D00

Shop all Continuing Legal Education videos for lawyers.