---
name: ime-report-analysis
title: IME Report Critical Analysis
description: 'Analyzes defense Independent Medical Examination (IME) reports for personal injury litigation, producing a plaintiff-side strategic memorandum with findings summary, treating-physician comparison, bias indicators, and cross-examination roadmap. Use when reviewing defense IME reports during discovery or pre-trial, preparing to depose or cross-examine a defense medical expert, or evaluating IME impact on case valuation. Trigger keywords: IME, independent medical examination, defense expert, medical examination report, cross-examination, bias indicators, impairment rating.'
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/ime-report-analysis
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: us
practice: personal-injury
language: en
tags: [analysis, litigation, summarization, summary]
---

# IME Report Critical Analysis

Produces a plaintiff-side memorandum dissecting a defense IME report: findings summary, treating-physician comparison, bias indicators, and cross-examination priorities.

## Prerequisites

1. **IME report** — complete defense expert report (PDF or text)
2. **Treating physician records** — office notes, operative reports, discharge summaries
3. **Diagnostic records** — imaging (MRI, X-ray, CT), EMG/NCS, lab results
4. **Therapy records** — PT, OT, chiropractic notes with functional progress
5. **Prior medical records** — pre-incident history relevant to claimed injuries

## Output Structure

### 1. IME Report Header

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Examiner name & credentials | |
| Referring party (defense counsel / carrier) | |
| Examination date & location | |
| Questions posed to examiner | |
| Records examiner claims to have reviewed | |

### 2. Records Gap Analysis

- List every record the examiner reviewed
- Cross-reference against the complete medical file
- **Flag omissions** — records not reviewed are a primary bias indicator

### 3. Examinee Profile

- Demographics, incident mechanism, chief complaints at IME
- Treatment timeline and providers
- Functional limitations: treating doctor notes vs. IME history section

### 4. IME Findings Summary

Summarize the examiner's opinions on:
- Diagnoses and causation
- MMI determination
- Permanent impairment rating (note AMA Guides edition — 5th vs. 6th produces materially different ratings)
- Future care recommendations
- Work restrictions / disability

### 5. Treating Physician Comparison

| Issue | IME Opinion | Treating Physician(s) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary diagnosis | | | |
| Causation | | | |
| MMI status | | | |
| Impairment rating | | | |
| Future medical needs | | | |
| Work restrictions | | | |

Flag every divergence. Extract direct quotes for contradictions.

### 6. Bias & Impeachment Indicators

Check each applicable red flag:

- [ ] Minimizes subjective complaints without objective basis
- [ ] Selectively cites records favoring defense; ignores contrary evidence
- [ ] Uses outdated or non-standard diagnostic criteria
- [ ] Causation opinions exceed examiner's stated specialty
- [ ] Examination cursory relative to treating exam scope
- [ ] IME history contradicts treating notes on same complaints
- [ ] Substantial income from defense medical-legal work
- [ ] High defense-to-plaintiff testimony ratio
- [ ] Disciplinary actions or published methodology criticisms
- [ ] Financial or referral relationship with referring carrier

### 7. Medical Authority Analysis

Where IME deviates from treating physicians, cite:
- AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (note edition)
- Specialty-specific guidelines (AAOS, AAN, ACOEM)
- Peer-reviewed literature contradicting examiner's methodology

Mark unverified citations as `[VERIFY]`.

### 8. Cross-Examination Priorities

Identify **3–5 highest-value vulnerabilities**:

| Vulnerability | Supporting Evidence | Suggested Question Areas |
|---|---|---|
| | | |

Focus on:
- Record omissions the examiner cannot explain
- Internal inconsistencies (exam findings ≠ written conclusions)
- Opinions lacking foundation in the examination itself
- Credential or specialty gaps for opinions rendered

### 9. Strategic Recommendations

- **Rebuttal experts** — specialties needed to counter IME opinions
- **Supplemental discovery** — prior testimony, financial disclosure, examiner publications
- **Case valuation impact** — whether IME materially shifts settlement leverage
- **Motion practice** — Daubert/Frye challenge grounds if methodology is non-standard

## Guidelines

- Cite page/paragraph references from IME and medical records for every assertion
- Do not characterize examiner as biased without documentary support — let the record speak
- Flag jurisdiction-specific IME rules (scope and obligations vary between state tort and workers' comp)
- Note whether IME was under a compulsory exam order with scope limitations
- Label output as attorney work product