Independent Medical Examination
An independent medical examination (IME) is a medical evaluation of an injured plaintiff performed by a physician selected by the defendant or their insurance company, rather than by the plaintiff's own treating physician. Despite being called independent, IMEs are widely recognized in personal injury litigation as examinations conducted by doctors who frequently serve as experts for insurance companies and defendants, often with financial incentives that may influence their findings. IMEs are commonly required in workers' compensation cases, auto injury claims, and civil litigation.
Insurance companies and defendants request IMEs to obtain a medical opinion that challenges or contradicts the opinions of the plaintiff's treating physicians regarding the nature, extent, and cause of the plaintiff's injuries. An IME physician might opine that the plaintiff's injuries are not as severe as claimed, that they pre-existed the accident, that the plaintiff has reached maximum medical improvement and no longer needs treatment, or that the claimed injuries are inconsistent with the accident mechanism. These opinions can significantly affect the outcome of settlement negotiations and trial.
Plaintiffs typically have a legal obligation to submit to an IME when properly requested by the defense during litigation, and refusal to comply can result in sanctions including dismissal of the case. However, plaintiffs have rights in connection with IMEs — including the right to bring their attorney or a medical observer to the examination in some jurisdictions, the right to record the examination, and the right to receive a copy of the IME report. Plaintiffs should prepare carefully for an IME by reviewing their medical history and consulting their attorney about what to expect.
The IME report, if unfavorable, will typically be used by the defense at trial to cross-examine the plaintiff's treating physicians and challenge the damages claimed. Plaintiff's attorneys respond to unfavorable IME reports by pointing out the IME physician's financial relationship with the insurance industry, the limited time spent with the plaintiff during the examination, the lack of a treating relationship, and any inconsistencies between the IME findings and the objective medical evidence in the case.