Spine Surgery
I.

Service

2nd Opinion Review

An independent second read of a prior opinion.

I review the underlying medical record, imaging, and operative documentation, then state whether the opinion is supported by the record, under-supported, or contradicted by the record. Objective, record-based, and available to both plaintiff and defense counsel.

II.

What is reviewed

The medical assertions on the other side of the case.

  • 01

    Prior expert reports

    Structural review of the other 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.

III.

Deliverables

Concise, defensible, escalation-ready.

Written analysis

A concise written analysis stating whether the prior opinion is supported by the record, under-supported, or contradicted by the record — and the clinical reasons why.

Question set for deposition

A focused set of medical questions counsel may consider for deposition or cross-examination of the physician whose opinion is under review.

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.

Engage

Send the prior opinion. Receive an independent read.