For Counsel · End-to-End Workflow
From a box of records to what the record shows.
Four services, one continuous engagement. Click any stage to see what the surgeon delivers at that point in the case — grounded in the record and independent of any side.
The Box of Records
What the attorney needs
You receive thousands of pages of records, imaging discs, and operative notes you cannot meaningfully read. You need to know what actually happened — before you decide how to litigate it.
The unsorted record is reorganized chronologically by clinical event — pre-injury baseline, mechanism, presentation, imaging, operative course, complications, recovery, residual deficit. Nothing is opinion yet. This is just so both sides are looking at the same case.
- —Chronological clinical timeline
- —Imaging index keyed to dates and findings
- —Gap list — what is missing or inconsistent
Record Analysis & Clinical Narrative
What the attorney needs
You need a clear, independent read of what the medicine actually shows — in language a jury can follow — without advocacy for either side.
A plain-language narrative of what the records show, with the clinical findings laid out neutrally. Where helpful, 3D reconstructions and surgical animations are commissioned to recreate the mechanism, the anatomy, and the operative decision.
- —Layman's clinical narrative (neutral record read)
- —Annotated imaging and operative figures
- —Optional 3D / animation recreations of the injury and surgery
Worked example · One record, two readings
A single record fact can be read more than one way. The surgeon's role is to say what the record actually supports.
Hypothetical: 38-year-old, low-speed rear-end collision, new T12 compression fracture on a previously degenerative spine. Select a record fact to see the independent record-based reading.
What the record says
Pre-crash lumbar MRI (14 months prior) shows multilevel degenerative disc disease at L4–L5 and L5–S1. Post-crash CT shows a non-displaced T12 compression fracture with ~15% height loss; surrounding bone is osteopenic on DEXA.
The patient was working full duty before the crash. The new T12 fracture is not on the prior imaging. The degeneration below is a separate, asymptomatic finding. A previously functional spine became a fractured spine on the day of the collision.
This is a degenerated, osteopenic spine. A 15% height loss in a low-energy mechanism is consistent with an insufficiency fracture that could have occurred from a cough, a lift, or a fall. The MRI tells you this spine was already failing.
The fracture is new. The bone quality is poor. Both are true. The honest question is whether the collision forces were sufficient to cause this fracture in this bone — not whether the bone was perfect.
Record reading A
Record reading B
Surgeon's synthesis
What the imaging, mechanism, and operative notes actually support — and where the record is silent.
Written Expert Opinion
What the attorney needs
You need a report that conforms to Rule 26 — or the applicable state expert disclosure template — and that will survive Daubert. You are not looking for help drafting it. You are looking for the surgeon to actually write it.
Self-authored. Reasoned. Cited. Each opinion stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, with the methodology and literature exposed so opposing counsel cannot strip it on a reliability challenge.
- —Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report, or state-template equivalent
- —Opinions, bases, and supporting literature
- —Qualifications, prior testimony, compensation disclosure
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)
Expert Report of Ahmer K. Ghori, MD
Deposition
What the attorney needs
You need an expert who is faithful to the record — calm under cross, precise, and unwilling to say more than the medicine actually supports.
The same surgeon who wrote the report sits in the deposition chair. Opinions are grounded in the record, not invented for the moment. If the record supports it, I say so. If it does not, I say that too.
- —Pre-deposition record review
- —Direct or cross testimony, in person or remote
- —Errata review and post-deposition debrief
Record excerpt
“I say what the record shows. Nothing more, nothing less.”
— A.K. Ghori, MD
Trial Testimony
What the attorney needs
You need the jury to actually understand the spine, the surgery, and what the record supports. You need an expert who will travel.
Direct and cross examination, demonstratives, and jury-facing explanation of anatomy, mechanism, standard of care, causation, and damages — grounded in the record. Available to travel.
- —Trial preparation with counsel and demonstratives team
- —Direct, cross, and redirect testimony
- —Travel — domestic, on reasonable notice