Service
Adverse Medical Opinion Analysis™
A physician-led review of the opposing spine opinion.
An independent, evidence-based review of the medical opinions on the other side of the case — opposing expert reports, IME reports, treating-provider conclusions, causation arguments, surgical-necessity claims, and future-care assumptions. Available to both plaintiff and defense counsel.
What is reviewed
The medical assertions on the other side of the case.
- 01
Opposing expert reports
Structural review of the opposing surgeon's methodology, cited literature, and the fit between the stated opinion and the underlying record.
- 02
IME reports
Evaluation of independent medical examiner conclusions — completeness of the examination, use of imaging, and consistency with the operative and clinical timeline.
- 03
Treating-provider conclusions
Assessment of treating physician notes and letters where causation, prognosis, or surgical necessity are asserted.
- 04
Causation arguments
Review of the proposed mechanism of injury against the imaging, operative findings, and pre-existing conditions documented in the record.
- 05
Surgical-necessity claims
Independent physician judgment on whether the record supports the surgery performed or proposed — indications, alternatives, and timing.
- 06
Future-care assumptions
Analysis of projected future spine care, revision risk, and life-care plan assumptions against current operative and rehabilitative standards.
Deliverables
Concise, defensible, escalation-ready.
Written analysis
A concise written analysis identifying where the opposing opinion is supported, where it is under-supported, and where the underlying record points in a different direction.
Question set for deposition
A focused set of medical questions counsel may consider for deposition or cross-examination of the opposing expert.
Optional escalation
Where warranted, the analysis can transition into a full Rule 26 report, deposition, or trial testimony under a separate engagement.
The methodology is the same regardless of the caption. The record drives the analysis; the retaining party does not.