Medical expert opinions need an explanation
Medical expert opinions can help establish the nature of an injury, its connection to an incident and its likely consequences. Their value comes from more than the expert's conclusion. The opinion should explain the information reviewed and the reasoning that connects that information to the conclusion.
A useful medical opinion explains the evidence and helps people understand how the injury has affected your life. I want to know not only what the expert believes, but why the available facts support that view.
That approach applies to opinions offered by either side. A disagreement between doctors should be examined through their qualifications, assumptions and reasoning. It should not be reduced to a personal accusation or an assumption about motives.
The question must fit the expert's qualifications
New Jersey's evidence rules recognize that specialized knowledge can assist the factfinder. Relevant expertise may come from knowledge, training, experience or other recognized qualifications. The question is whether the person's expertise fits the subject of the opinion.
A physician may be well qualified in one area without being the appropriate person to address every issue in a case. Counsel should identify what opinion is needed and why the proposed expert can reliably address it. The title doctor is not the entire analysis.
The same principle applies when a case needs an opinion about future care or the practical effect of a limitation. Each opinion should remain within an appropriate area of expertise and rest on an adequate factual foundation.
Review the records behind the conclusion
An expert may need the initial treatment records, later examinations and relevant prior history. Missing information can affect the assumptions used. A report should make clear what was reviewed and what information remains unavailable.
For example, an opinion about whether a condition changed after an accident may require records showing the person's earlier function. That history can strengthen the explanation of a new injury or aggravation. It should not be treated as something to avoid simply because it predates the incident.
If a report contains a factual mistake, identify it specifically and provide the supporting record. A correction to the underlying facts may affect the opinion, or the expert may explain why it does not. Either response is more informative than arguing about the conclusion without addressing its basis.
Timing can explain an apparent disagreement
Doctors may examine a person at different stages of recovery. A limitation present soon after an injury may improve, while another problem becomes clearer with additional testing. Two reports should be compared with attention to when the evaluations occurred.
The purpose of an encounter also matters. An emergency visit addresses immediate concerns. A later specialist may investigate persistent symptoms in more depth. A brief initial note does not necessarily answer every question that a later examination was designed to address.
Those distinctions do not make every difference harmless or every opinion compatible. They identify the questions that need to be asked before treating a difference as a direct contradiction.
Reasoning matters more than a bare assertion
New Jersey courts require an expert opinion to have an adequate basis. A conclusion that does not explain the connection between the facts and the result may present what courts describe as a net-opinion problem. The technical legal standard is applied by the court to the particular report and testimony.
For a client, the practical point is that a report should explain the medical reasoning. If the expert attributes a limitation to the accident, what evidence supports that connection? If the expert attributes it to something else, how was that conclusion reached?
An advocate can test an opinion by examining those questions. That is more useful and fairer than attacking the expert personally. The strength of the case should come from the evidence and the quality of the explanation.
Compensation and relationships require context
Experts are commonly paid for reviewing records and testifying. Payment alone does not establish that an opinion is improper. Relevant relationships or patterns of work may be examined within the applicable evidence rules, but the inquiry should remain factual.
If an issue concerning an expert's work is raised, counsel should have support for it and explain its relevance. A client should not be told that a medical opinion can be dismissed simply because the doctor was retained by an insurer or by the injured person's lawyer.
The more important task is to identify whether the opinion addresses the actual evidence, uses appropriate methods and fairly accounts for facts that may point in another direction.
The judge and factfinder have different roles
The court determines whether expert evidence meets the applicable admissibility requirements. If admitted, the factfinder evaluates its weight along with the other evidence. An opinion's admission does not mean the court has declared it correct in every respect.
Likewise, a disagreement between experts is not resolved by counting how many doctors appear on each side. The reasoning, the records and the credibility of the testimony matter. Your lawyer should explain how the evidence may be presented and where the genuine disputes lie.
What clients can contribute
Provide a complete and accurate treatment history. Tell your lawyer when another provider becomes involved or a new test is performed. If you notice that a report omits a relevant fact, raise the issue so it can be reviewed.
You are not expected to supply the expert opinion yourself. Your experience and records provide information that qualified professionals can assess. The goal is a clear medical explanation that gives your injury claim the careful consideration it deserves.
Sources and Further Reading
About Michael B. Fusco
Michael B. Fusco is a New Jersey personal injury attorney certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney. Read Mike’s biography and credentials.
Discuss Your Personal Injury Questions
If you have questions about an injury in New Jersey, I am happy to discuss what happened and the options the facts may support. You do not need to have every document or answer before contacting us. Call 732-465-8733 or contact Fusco Law for a free personal injury consultation.
General Information
This article provides general information, not legal advice for a particular situation. Laws and policy terms must be applied to the actual facts. Reading this article or contacting the firm does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship.