Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cherry-Picking Records in Independent Medical Examinations: Strategies for Intervention to Mitigate a Legal and Ethical Imbroglio

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 13 August 2014

Abstract

Independent medical examinations (IMEs) theoretically construe a means of “independently” assessing a claimant’s physical and psychological status, as well as to determine whether treatment that has been and will potentially be provided is reasonable and necessary. IMEs may be undertaken both for the plaintiff and defense or related adversaries. In the present case, we focus on IMEs that are requested by insurers. One can query the degree to which IMEs are actually “independent.” It has been posited that one of the ways in which claims managers contribute to potential bias against claimants is through a process of selectively providing examiners with medical records, which has been described as “cherry-picking.” Despite the existence of rules and laws that are designed to prevent cherry-picking, the practice still occurs. This analysis discusses the legal as well as ethical implications of cherry-picking and its potential to cause or exacerbate psychological injury that a claimant may experience. The authors propose that psychologists as well as attorneys can advocate for their vulnerable patients/clients in cases of cherry-picking. A recent case study from the clinical practice of the first author in which he so acted is provided. We conclude with a discussion of the ethical implications of the psychologist’s intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Medical Association. (2005). Standards for independent medical examinations. Available at: http://www.aimehi.com/PDFs/IME%20standards%20for%20AIMEHI%20web%20site.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2013.

  • American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct including 2010 amendments. Available at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Accessed 26 January 26, 2014.

  • Appleby, K. S., & Tarver, J. (2006). Medical records review (4th ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, M. A. (2005). Opinion piece: is an independent medical evaluation independent? Forensic Examiner, 14, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, D. E. (2007). Ethical issues of chronic pain from a patient’s perspective. In M. E. Schatman (Ed.), Ethical issues in chronic pain management (pp. 15–32). New York: Informa Healthcare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, H. C., & Nolan, J. R. (1999). Black’s law dictionary: definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence ancient and modern; [with pronunciations] (7th ed.). St. Paul: West Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown v. Superior Court (1949), 34 Cal.2d 559, 564 [212 P.2d 878].

  • Bush, S. S., & Heilbronner, R. L. (2012). The neuropsychological IME. In S. S. Bush & G. L. Iverson (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of work-related injuries (pp. 280–302). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorado Department of Labor & Employment. (2013). Rule 11 – Division Independent Medical Examination. Available at: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=CDLE-WorkComp%2FCDLELayout&cid=1251567882380&pagename=CDLEWrapper#Rule_11-6. Accessed 1 December 2013.

  • Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958), 50 Cal.2d 654.

  • Dersh, J., Polatin, P. B., Leeman, G., & Gatchel, R. J. (2004). The management of secondary gain and loss in medicolegal settings: strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14, 267–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisendrath, S. J., Rand, D. C., & Feldman, M. D. (1996). Factitious disorders and litigation. In M. D. Feldman & S. J. Eisendrath (Eds.), The spectrum of factitious disorders (pp. 65–82). Washington: American Psychiatric Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaughwin, P. C. (2004). Beyond the noise and smoke: some challenges for mental health professionals entering the forensic arena. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11, 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. (2011). The medicalization of episodic regional backache. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine, 2, 237–251.

  • Greve, K. W., Ord, J. S., Bianchini, K. J., & Curtis, K. L. (2007). Prevalence of malingering in patients with chronic pain referred for psychologic evaluation in a medico-legal context. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 90, 1117–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973), 9 Cal.3d 566, 575.

  • Hilker v. Western Automobile Ins. Co. (1930), 204 Wis. 1 [231 N.W. 257, 258] (aff’d on rehg., 204 Wis. 1 [235 N.W. 413].

  • Howard, K. J., Kishino, N. D., Johnston, V. J., Worzer, W. E., & Gatchel, R. J. (2010). Malingering and pain: Is this a major problem in the medicolegal setting? Psychological Injury and Law, 3, 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblau, B. L., & Burkhardt, A. (2012). Ethics in rehabilitation: a clinical perspective (2nd ed.). Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulich, R. J., & Baker, W. K. (1997). Psychologic evaluation in the management of chronic pain and disability. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 1, 116–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ky, P., Hameed, H., & Christo, P. J. (2009). Independent medical examinations: facts and fallacies. Pain Physician, 12, 811–818.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Law Society of New Brunswick, College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick, New Brunswick Medical Society, Canadian Bar Association—New Brunswick Branch. (2002). Interactions Between Lawyers and Physicians in Litigation. Available at: http://www.lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca/assets/documents/INTERACTION%20Lawyers%20Physicians.%20English.pdf. Accessed 1 December 2013.

  • Lax, M. B., Manetti, F. A., & Klein, R. A. (2004). Medical evaluation of work-related illness: Evaluations by a treating occupational medicine specialist and by independent medical examiners compared. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 10, 1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martelli, M. F., Zasler, N. D., & Grayon, R. (1999). Ethical considerations in impairment and disability evaluations following acquired brain injury. In V. R. May & M. F. Martelli (Eds.), Guide to functional capacity evaluation with impairment rating applications (pp. 204–270). Richmond: NADEP Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maryland Workers’ Compensation. (2013). Workers’ Compensation Medical Records. Available at: http://www.mdcomplaw.com/info/medical/workers-compensation-medical-records/. Accessed 30 December 2013.

  • National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Model Regulation Service – July 1997, Model 902 Available at: http://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-902.pdf. Accessed 19 January 2014.

  • Ochoa, J. L., & Verdugo, R. J. (2010). Neuropathic pain syndrome displayed by malingerers. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 22, 278–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. Guide to Providing Independent Medical Exams. (2011). Available at: http://www.cbs.state.or.us/wcd/communications/publications/4913.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2013.

  • Schatman, M. E. (2011). The role of the health insurance industry in perpetuating suboptimal pain management. Pain Medicine, 12, 415–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schatman, M. E. (2012). Workers compensation and its potential for perpetuation of disability. In R. J. Gatchel & I. Z. Schultz (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health and wellness (pp. 341–361). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schatman, M. E., & Sullivan, J. (2010). Whither suffering? The potential impact of tort reform on the emotional and existential healing of traumatically injured chronic pain patients. Psychological Injury and Law, 3, 182–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofferman J. (2007). Opinions and testimony of expert witnesses and independent medical evaluators. Pain Medicine, 8, 376–82.

  • Stempel, J. W. (2009). The “other” intermediaries: the increasingly anachronistic immunity of managing general agents and independent claims adjusters. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 15, 599–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. D., & Loeser, J. D. (1992). The diagnosis of disability: treating and rating disability in a pain clinic. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1829–1835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. J. L., & Main, C. (2007). Service, advocacy and adjudication: balancing the ethical challenges of multiple stakeholder agendas in the rehabilitation of chronic pain. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29, 1596–1603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for Ethics in Pain Care, 1601 114th Ave. SE, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA, 98004, USA

    Michael E. Schatman

  2. Law Office of Janet L. Thoman, Issaquah, WA, USA

    Janet L. Thoman

Authors
  1. Michael E. Schatman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet L. Thoman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. Schatman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schatman, M.E., Thoman, J.L. Cherry-Picking Records in Independent Medical Examinations: Strategies for Intervention to Mitigate a Legal and Ethical Imbroglio. Psychol. Inj. and Law 7, 191–196 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9194-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-014-9194-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation