Questioning the 'I' in 'IME'
Dear Editor:
In "Good Counsel" [Trial Magazine, Dec. 1993, at page 58], Lin S. Lilley of Albuquerque, New Mexico, insightfully describes "priming" as "a linguistic strategy in which one uses a word or phrase to frame information in a positive or negative light." Exhibit A for the effectiveness of Lilley's technique can be found by flipping back to Thomas J. Vesper's article in the same issue ["Who's Afraid of the Independent Medical Examiner?' at page 29.]
At a recent Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association seminar, moderator Timothy A. Shollenberger said he refuses to use the phrase "independent medical examiner." He reasons that no witness who is contacted, retained, informed, and paid by one party is independent. To be truly independent, the examining physician would have to be retained and paid by the Court (or by both parties).
Realistically, it is often the plaintiff's treating physician who more nearly deserves the designation "independent medical examiner." Usually the plaintiff did not know the doctor who treated the injury before the injury. The need for acute care brought patient and doctor together.
Unfortunately, in a "priming" tour de force, the defense bar has successfully implanted the IME virus in the subconscious of judges and practitioners. It will take a conscious and concerted effort to root it out.
I urge you to join Mr. Shollenberger and work to replace IME with DME.
Terry W. Light
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
* * * * *
Terry W. Light, J.D. © 1999 All Rights Reserved
[Terry W. Light is a 1974 graduate of the Harvard Law School, who practices personal injury law in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.]
Published in the May 1994 issue of Trial Magazine, the magazine of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
tlight@brann-light.com
Return to Index of Articles and Commentary by Terry W. Light