Articles Tagged with Injury attorney in West Palm Beach

Published on:

Most Plaintiffs in personal injury cases that are in litigation are required to undergo a Compulsory or Independent medical examination also known as the CME. This is an examination that is requested by the opposing side and is done by a physician that is hired by the opposition.

The CME involves a review of records, a physical examination, face to face interview, review of test results, and conclusions. The goal of this examination is to confirm the initial injury diagnosis and determine whether such injury was due to the accident. The physician is also looking to verify that the current symptoms and findings are consistent with the diagnosis made. Lastly, they are looking to determine whether the individual is exaggerating or making up their complaints. This examining physician is not a treating physician and is also considered a hired expert for the opposition. Due to this, it is understood that there is always an element of bias involved in their conclusions.

It is important to keep in mind that by the time the plaintiff enters the examination room, the physician has already had the chance to review all treatment records and other records that were provided to him prior to the examination. The Plaintiff must be prepared for this examination and understand what could potentially be asked by the physician. Hired CME physicians are trained to look for and document potential indicators of fraud and deception during the interview portion of the examination and the availability of all these records prior to the appointment makes it easier for them to find. The physicians look for things such as verbal behavior indicators, omitting information such as prior injuries, too much information, overly specific answers, aggressive reactions to the questions, invocation of religion not to answer the questions and the use of qualifiers such as “honestly” and “truthfully”.

Published on:

A boy who sustained serious and lasting damage to his knee as a result of deep lacerations caused by shards of broken glass at a public park is entitled to the $425,000 damage award granted by a trial jury, an appellate court ruled recently.

The fact the child was not supervised by his mother at the park at the time of the injury did not diminish the responsibility of government workers to clean up the mess, which witnesses testified had been present for upwards of six weeks.

The defendant city in Myers v. City of West Plains argued trial court’s decision to specifically instruct jurors not to consider the fact that the boy’s mother wasn’t present was improper, something the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Southern District rejected. The appellate court backed the trial court’s decision to give the instruction, reasoning the lack of supervision was not a significant contributing factor in the boy’s injury, but such information might have unfairly prejudiced plaintiffs had the instruction not been given.

Contact Information