Search Annals: Advanced search

Rapid Responses to:

Perspectives: Ken Baum Independent Medical Examinations: An Expanding Source of Physician Liability Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 974-978 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

Send comment/rapid response letter

Electronic letters published:

Liability for IME doc's

Robert Ferrari   (9 September 2005)

Liability for IME doc's 9 September 2005
Robert Ferrari, MD, FRCPC, FACP University of Alberta Send rapid response to journal: Re: Liability for IME doc's rferrari{at}shaw.ca Robert Ferrari	Dear Editor, In the article By Baum (2005;142:974-978) concerning physician liabiity in Independent Medical Examinations, there is an important statement that requires more address. Most can agree that IME doc's should make it clear that they are non-treating physicians in this examination scenario, but that the third party has asked them to provide treatment recommendations in their report. There is a hanging statement in the Baum article at the penultimate section that is just thrown into the text with no prior reference or discussion that I can see. In the last point (number 5) of "Implications and recommendations for IME physicians" it reads: "Finally, IME physicians must be aware that by providing affirmative medical treatment or advice, they may expand the scope of their legal duties to the patient, and hence their potential liability." There is no discussion of this point anywhere prior in the text, but it is thrown out as a caution. While the author reviews case law of other matters that arise in an IME and may lead to liability, I wonder why this point, which is emphasized here, is not discussed anywhere else in the text. Is there any case law which defines or addresses IME treatment advice? What is affirmative versus non-affirmative medical advice? If there are no answers to these question or we have no case law on the matter, why is it being raised here in a list of strong cautions? Conflict of Interest: None declared