Motor Vehicle Accident Attorney: When to Request an Independent Medical Exam

Car wrecks don’t just rearrange sheet metal. They complicate lives. Clients tell me about stiffness that becomes nerve pain months later, headaches that don’t show up on scans, fatigue that derails work. In the middle of that, the insurance company wants its say about what hurts and why. That is where independent medical exams come into play. Despite the name, an IME is rarely fully independent. It can still be valuable, but only if you understand what it is, when to request one, how to frame it, and how to guard your case against predictable pitfalls.

I have requested IMEs for injured clients, fought them when insurers pushed unreasonably, and prepared clients to get through them without undermining their recovery or their claims. The timing and strategy matter as much as the medical opinions themselves.

What an IME actually is, and what it is not

An independent medical exam is a non-treating evaluation by a clinician who offers an opinion on diagnosis, causation, impairment, and sometimes future care. The doctor does not provide treatment. There is no doctor-patient relationship in the traditional sense, and you should not expect therapeutic advice. The report is aimed at a legal audience. Judges, juries, adjusters, and opposing counsel will read it far more closely than your primary care notes.

In auto collision claims, IMEs usually surface in two ways. The defense or an insurance carrier demands one under a policy provision or procedural rule. Or the injured party, working with a motor vehicle accident attorney, requests a neutral evaluation to address a specific dispute. The first category is common. The second is underused but can be decisive when you pick the right issue and the right expert.

The label independent can mislead people. Many examiners do a significant volume of work for insurers, and patterns emerge in their opinions. That does not make them useless. It just means you approach them with clear eyes, strong preparation, and a record of your own.

Why the timing matters more than most people realize

An IME taken too early can understate injuries. Taken too late, it may look like a litigation tactic. Healing is not linear, so you want a snapshot when your condition is medically stable enough to assess, yet not so distant from the crash that causation becomes the battleground.

A few timing markers guide my advice in routine auto accident cases. If the injury involves soft tissue only, I prefer to wait until six to twelve weeks post-collision, after initial therapy establishes a baseline but before chronicity locks in. For suspected disc herniation or radiculopathy, I wait until imaging and nerve studies are complete, which may be within two to four months, depending on symptom progression. For concussions and post-concussive symptoms, I push for a neuropsychological evaluation at the three to six month mark, after subtle cognitive deficits show a pattern across standardized tests.

Surgical cases require their own rhythm. If surgery is likely, an IME before the procedure is rarely useful for long-term impairment. If surgery is done, I wait until the surgeon declares maximum medical improvement or a comparable plateau, often three to nine months post-op depending on the body part. If you request or oppose an IME out of sync with these benchmarks, be ready to explain why the timing still yields reliable data.

When a plaintiff should request an IME rather than resist one

Defense-requested IMEs get all the attention. Yet many car accident lawyers strategically commission their own. It is not about flooding the file with doctors. It is about picking a narrow question and a good witness who can answer it convincingly.

Here are situations where I seriously consider requesting a plaintiff-side IME:

Persistent diagnostic ambiguity where clinic notes point in different directions, such as myofascial pain versus small fiber neuropathy, or migraine versus cervicogenic headaches. A complex causation issue with pre-existing conditions, for example degenerative spine disease or prior concussions. A well-written report can separate aggravation from baseline, quantify the change, and anchor damages. A functional dispute where the insurer accepts the diagnosis but minimizes impact, like mild TBI with normal MRI, CRPS with inconsistent temperature changes, or chronic pain affecting endurance rather than raw strength. Anticipated defense IME by a frequent insurer examiner. Preempting with a more thorough, methodologically rigorous evaluation can set the reference frame for the court and push settlement in the right direction. Vocational and life-care planning needs, where a treating physician will not or cannot provide a comprehensive future care or work capacity analysis.

The aim is to refine the record, not multiply voices. Judges and juries reward clarity. One careful, conservative specialist often carries more weight than three cheerleaders.

Most jurisdictions have procedural rules that allow a party to seek an examination when the physical or mental condition of a person is in controversy. In federal court, Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets the standard. Many states have a similar rule with local twists. Personal injury protection policies may include specific IME provisions, particularly in no-fault systems.

You can often negotiate terms even when the rule allows the defense a right to examine. Scope and conditions are fair game. Courts usually enforce reasonable limitations, such as forbidding invasive procedures, setting a time limit for the exam, or narrowing the specialty. If the dispute involves a shoulder, a defense request for an evaluation by a general orthopedist who mostly does knees is vulnerable to challenge.

Venue-specific habits matter. Some counties rubber-stamp one IME, others scrutinize frequency and necessity. A seasoned auto accident attorney knows the tendencies and builds proposals that align with what local judges typically allow.

What makes an IME persuasive to decision makers

A persuasive IME, whether requested by a vehicle accident lawyer or by the defense, shares a few traits. The examiner listens. The report is transparent about methods, test selection, and limitations. There is a traceable line from data to conclusions. The tone is measured, not argumentative.

Details that strengthen the opinion include time-stamped range-of-motion measurements, grip strength recorded in pounds on a dynamometer, balance testing results with normative percentiles, or neuropsychological scores tied to established validity metrics. Strong reports address symptom validity and effort without turning every inconsistency into fraud. They reconcile differences between imaging and symptoms. They explain why a normal EMG does not exclude nerve irritation at a given stage, or why a clear brain MRI does not rule out a cognitive deficit.

One of the most useful paragraphs in a good IME is the section on differential diagnosis. When the examiner shows their process in ruling out alternatives, a reader who is not medically trained can still follow the logic.

When to resist a defense IME and how to narrow it

Not every defense exam is reasonable. I push back when requests exceed the dispute. If liability is admitted and the crash resulted in a surgically confirmed fracture, a second or third orthopedic IME often adds nothing but delay. If the defense seeks a psychiatric evaluation based on garden-variety pain complaints with no mental health claim in the pleadings, that is overreach. Courts notice.

You can often cure problems with scope. An exam limited to musculoskeletal evaluation of the cervical and thoracic spine for up to 90 minutes, no imaging, no injections, and no second-day testing, is harder for the defense to abuse. If the case has already seen one defense IME, I require a concrete explanation for a second: a changed condition, new records, or a distinct specialty like neurology rather than another generalist.

Location also matters. Many rules require a reasonable travel distance. For a client juggling therapy and work, a five-hour round trip to a city clinic is not reasonable if there are comparable specialists within 40 miles. A neutral site or a video component for non-physical portions can solve logistics without harming the defense rights.

How to prepare a client without coaching testimony

Preparation is not about scripting answers. It is about accuracy, consistency, and respect for the exam’s purpose. I ask clients to bring a short symptom timeline with dates, treatments, and medication lists. I tell them to wear comfortable clothing that allows movement testing. I remind them that brief answers trump narratives, and guessing is dangerous. If a motion hurts at a certain point, say where and how it feels. If a past injury occurred, say so. Omissions cause more damage than admissions.

Clients should expect observation from the moment they arrive. Some examiners watch how a person gets out of a car, picks up a bag, or moves in the waiting room before testing begins. That is not paranoia. It is a documented tactic. If pain flares with repeated motions or prolonged posture, it is fair to mention that early so the examiner plans breaks and avoids misinterpreting fatigue as disinterest.

I advise against bringing new imaging or outside records unless we have agreed on it. The exam is not a treatment visit. The examiner will review the materials the parties exchanged. Surprises rarely help at this stage.

The role of treating physicians versus IME doctors

Treaters and IME doctors speak to different audiences. A treating physician’s notes often carry built-in credibility because they reflect care decisions made over time. They show how symptoms evolved, what responded to therapy, and what did not. On the other hand, many treaters dislike forensic questions. Causation, apportionment, or future care cost projections fall outside their comfort zone.

A well-chosen IME can fill that gap. For example, a board-certified physiatrist can integrate therapy notes, imaging, and functional testing to quantify permanent impairment. A neuropsychologist can parse cognitive complaints into testable domains and assess effort with validity indices. A life-care planner can translate medical opinions into the price of equipment, meds, and attendant care across a realistic lifespan.

The sweet spot is a complementary record, not a duel. If the IME contradicts a treater on a key point, be ready with either a clarifying letter from the treater, a supplemental report, or both experts appearing live if the case goes that far.

Common IME pitfalls and how to manage them

Certain patterns repeat in automobile accident cases. One is overreliance on a single normal test to deny the injury. A standard lumbar MRI may not show annular tears or facet injury that still generates pain. A normal EMG at six weeks does not resolve all radicular complaints. To counter this, ensure your record has longitudinal notes, functional testing, and, where appropriate, more sensitive imaging or repeat studies at a medically supported interval.

Another pitfall is the symptom validity hammer. Some examiners interpret minor inconsistencies as proof of exaggeration. Humans vary. Pain fluctuates day to day. The best way to defuse this is not to seek perfection, but to show a consistent arc in the records and to acknowledge variability where it exists. Range-of-motion numbers do not have to match exactly across visits. They should trend in plausible ways.

A third pitfall is letting the IME dictate the narrative by default. If the defense IME is the only comprehensive report that addresses causation and impairment, it will fill the vacuum. Even a modest plaintiff-side evaluation or a targeted letter from a treater can prevent that outcome.

Special considerations by injury type

Neck and back strains receive the bulk of IME attention because they are frequent and subjective. For these, function tells the story more than a static image. If lifting capacity drops from 70 pounds to 25, if sitting tolerance falls to 30 minutes, if household chores take twice as long, document that across visits. Ask therapists to record objective metrics. Examiners are more cautious when a paper trail shows effort and measured limits.

Disc injuries raise causation battles over degeneration. A clear pre-injury baseline helps. Employment physicals, gym logs, or even social media posts showing activity can be useful. An IME that explains how asymptomatic degeneration can become symptomatic after a collision, with reference to specific imaging features like Modic changes or acute annular fissures, carries weight.

Concussion cases benefit from neuropsychological assessment that includes validity testing. Clients often feel insulted by those measures. I tell them the tests protect their credibility. If the results show good effort, the defense loses a favorite argument. If effort flags because of fatigue or anxiety, that too should be explained in the narrative rather than left as an unaddressed footnote.

Shoulder and knee injuries sometimes trigger defense claims of natural rotator cuff wear or patellofemoral syndrome. Here, mechanism of injury and immediate symptoms matter. Did the client brace with an outstretched arm on the steering wheel? Did swelling and limited range appear within hours? An orthopedic IME that connects clinical signs with that mechanism can cut through generic degeneration arguments.

Chronic pain syndromes, including CRPS, require careful documentation of objective signs over time. Temperature asymmetry, nail and hair changes, skin color shifts, and edema ebb and flow. One exam may miss it. Multiple photographs, serial measurements, and diaries create a context that even a skeptical examiner must address.

Using IME results to negotiate and to try cases

Adjusters and defense lawyers read IME reports with two questions in mind. https://wakelet.com/wake/gWaNLb00euJU1pAGpn2JF What can we argue, and what might a jury believe? If your IME answers the juror question better than the defense answers the argument question, settlement odds improve.

I use clean excerpts that translate medical jargon into plain English. Rather than pasting a full page of neurology, I highlight three sentences that tie mechanism, symptoms, and prognosis. If the IME is mixed, I lead with agreed facts. Causation often matters more than degree. Once an examiner concedes the crash caused at least a permanent aggravation, the debate shifts from whether to how much.

At trial, an IME doctor who can teach the jury without sounding like an advocate is gold. The best witnesses illustrate with models, avoid buzzwords, and admit limits. They do not treat the other side’s expert as an enemy. They explain differences as methodological, not moral. Jurors trust that more than a polished sales pitch.

How insurers use IMEs and what that means for your case

Carrier use of IMEs varies by jurisdiction and policy type. In no-fault states, PIP insurers may schedule IMEs to shut off benefits. After two or three dense reports from the same clinic, payments for therapy may stop. Plaintiffs often focus on the liability claim later, but the PIP record will follow them. If the PIP IME says no more treatment is necessary, expect the liability adjuster to treat that as gospel unless you counter with credible evidence.

In bodily injury claims, defense counsel commonly seeks one IME per specialty. They choose examiners who write tight reports and rarely concede causation beyond short-lived sprains. Knowing the local cast of characters helps. If an examiner is notorious for dismissing concussions wholesale, I line up a neuropsychologist early and build a record that does not hinge on self-reported symptoms alone.

Some insurers push for remote assessments for cognitive or psychiatric claims. Virtual tools can work, but they bring validity challenges. If remote is proposed, I insist on agreed protocols for identity verification, environment control, and test selection that has norms validated for telehealth conditions. Otherwise, the defense will attack the data, even if they asked for the format.

Ethics, optics, and independence

The best IME on your side is not a paid megaphone. An examiner who always says what you want loses utility. I tell clients and referral sources the same thing: we are paying for their time, not their conclusion. If the answer hurts the case, we need to know early. Honest warts can guide settlement to a realistic number and avoid a trial surprise.

On the defense side, the appearance of independence is equally thin if an examiner earns most of their income from insurer exams. Courts sometimes allow cross-examination on volume and pay. That does not automatically disqualify the opinion, but it shapes weight. If you request an IME, pick a clinician with balanced work across treatment and evaluation and across plaintiff and defense assignments. The optics help when jurors weigh credibility in a close case.

Documentation that amplifies or undermines an IME

An IME sits within a larger medical record. That context can amplify or drown its conclusions. Keep your house in order. Therapy no-shows and scattered home exercise compliance undercut every opinion on functional limits. If transportation or child care interferes, note it in the records. It shifts the story from noncompliance to barrier management.

Medication histories matter. Inconsistent use of prescribed meds will appear in pharmacy records. If side effects drive sporadic use, ask treating doctors to document the reason and the alternatives tried. When an IME opines about expected relief from medication that the client cannot tolerate, the treating notes rebut that neatly.

Work notes should match reports of function. If a client claims inability to sit more than 20 minutes, a job record showing four-hour shifts without breaks will raise questions. That does not mean you hide work. It means you document accommodations, pacing, and the cost of pushing through pain.

A brief roadmap for requesting or responding to an IME

Below is a short, practical sequence that reflects how experienced car accident claim lawyers approach IMEs without turning the process into a circus.

Define the question the IME must answer: causation, impairment, future care, or functional capacity. Select the tightest appropriate specialty, then vet the examiner’s methodology, testimony history, and publication record. Negotiate scope, timing, and logistics in writing, with reasonable limits on duration, invasive procedures, and collateral sources. Prepare the client with facts, not scripts, and provide the examiner with curated, indexed records that track the injury story coherently. Follow up with a clarifying letter if the report misstates data, and, when necessary, seek a supplemental exam or deposition to correct the record.

Where a motor vehicle accident attorney adds real value

People often call a car accident attorney for help with paperwork or a settlement number. The value shows most in the gray zones. Knowing when to say yes to an IME, when to request your own, and what to do with a mixed report can swing outcomes by five figures, sometimes more. A seasoned auto injury lawyer has seen enough reports and depositions to anticipate tactics, protect the client from avoidable missteps, and build a record that reads as fair to a neutral decision maker.

This skillset travels across labels. Whether you look for a car crash lawyer, a vehicle accident lawyer, or a motor vehicle accident attorney, you want someone who treats IMEs as a tool, not a threat. They should speak fluently with medical professionals, not just quote records. They should know the judges and the local IME regulars. They should measure success in durable results, not quick checks.

The exam is a moment, not the case. Get the timing right, define the question, pick the right expert, and integrate the findings into a coherent story. Do that, and the IME becomes a piece of evidence that supports recovery rather than a hurdle that derails it.

Edit

Pub: 26 Oct 2025 12:45 UTC

Views: 1