Key Takeaway
Court ruling shows IME doctors can face malpractice liability when they depart from accepted medical practice during examinations, requiring proper evidence of standard procedures.
Understanding IME Medical Malpractice: Legal Standards and Physician Accountability
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a cornerstone of New York’s no-fault insurance system, designed to provide objective medical assessments for insurance claims. However, what happens when the examining physician’s conduct during an IME crosses the line into medical malpractice? A recent court decision provides important guidance on the legal standards that apply when IME doctors face malpractice claims.
The case of Goldson v Mann illustrates the challenges physicians face when defending against allegations that they departed from accepted medical practice during an IME. This decision highlights critical issues about evidence requirements and the burden of proof in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases involving IME procedures. Understanding these standards is essential for both medical professionals conducting IMEs and patients who may suffer injuries during these examinations.
While IME letters do not need to be sent to provider under certain circumstances, the conduct during the actual examination must still meet professional medical standards.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Goldson v Mann, 2019 NY Slip Op 04329 (1st Dept. 2019)
” Defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of demonstrating that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in examining plaintiff during an independent medical examination (IME), or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury to her left shoulder (see Scalisi v Oberlander, 96 AD3d 106, 120 ). Defendant’s expert affirmation, which relied on defendant’s testimony regarding his custom and practice of examining patients during his IMEs, was insufficient. Defendant’s testimony did not establish a deliberate and repetitive practice sufficient to show evidence of his behavior during plaintiff’s examination, as he testified that his examination varied depending on the examinee”
Key Takeaway
This ruling establishes that IME physicians cannot simply rely on general testimony about their usual practices to defend against malpractice claims. Instead, they must provide specific evidence of deliberate and consistent examination procedures. The court’s decision emphasizes that varying examination methods based on individual patients undermines a physician’s ability to prove they followed standard medical practices during a specific IME.
