In personal injury cases, medical evidence often determines everything. Your diagnosis, treatment history, and prognosis shape how insurers value your claim and how juries understand your injuries. Yet one of the most misunderstood—and most strategically used—tools in injury litigation is the Independent Medical Exam, commonly called an IME.
Despite the name, IMEs are rarely “independent” in the way injured people expect. At Alan Ripka & Associates, we believe clients deserve to understand what IMEs really are, why defendants request them, and how these exams are often used to challenge legitimate injury claims.
What Is an Independent Medical Exam?
An Independent Medical Exam is a medical evaluation requested by the defense—usually an insurance company or employer—after you file an injury claim. The purpose is not treatment. Instead, the exam is designed to generate a report that assesses your condition, causation, and level of impairment.
In most cases, the defense chooses and pays the doctor who performs the IME. These physicians may specialize in fields such as orthopedics, neurology, or pain management, depending on the injuries alleged.
Although courts often require plaintiffs to attend IMEs, the exam is not intended to help you recover. Its role is strictly evaluative—and adversarial.
Why Defendants Request IMEs
Defense attorneys and insurers rely on IMEs for one primary reason: to reduce or deny liability.
An IME can be used to:
- Question whether your injuries are as serious as claimed
- Argue that symptoms are exaggerated or unrelated to the accident
- Suggest a pre-existing condition is the real cause of your pain
- Dispute the necessity of ongoing treatment
- Undermine your treating physician’s opinions
In short, IMEs give the defense a counter-narrative to the story told by your own doctors.
The Timing of IMEs Matters
IME requests often come after months of treatment—sometimes just before trial or settlement negotiations. This timing is strategic. The defense hopes to introduce doubt late in the case, pressuring plaintiffs to settle for less or weakening credibility before a jury.
The Myth of “Independence”
The term “Independent Medical Exam” suggests neutrality, but the reality is more complicated.
IME doctors are frequently hired repeatedly by insurance companies. Some earn a significant portion of their income performing evaluations for defendants rather than treating patients. While not every IME physician is biased, the structure of the process creates incentives that plaintiffs should understand.
IME reports often focus less on your lived experience and more on technical justifications for minimizing injury.
What Happens During an IME
Many injured clients are surprised by how brief and impersonal IMEs can be.
An IME may include:
- A short interview about your medical history
- Basic physical movements or strength tests
- Limited review of imaging or records
- Minimal discussion of pain levels or daily limitations
The exam may last far less time than a typical appointment with your treating physician. Yet the resulting report can be lengthy—and heavily opinionated.
Surveillance Can Be Part of the Process
In some cases, insurers conduct surveillance before or after an IME. They may observe how you walk, drive, or carry objects. These observations can be selectively referenced in the IME report to suggest inconsistencies, even when activities are minor or taken out of context.
How IMEs Are Used Against Plaintiffs
IME reports are powerful defense tools because they appear “objective” on paper. Jurors unfamiliar with the system may assume the IME doctor is neutral, even when their role is clearly adversarial.
Challenging Causation
One common tactic is arguing that your injuries were not caused by the accident at all. An IME doctor may attribute symptoms to age, degeneration, or prior conditions—sometimes without ever treating you before.
Minimizing Pain and Disability
IME reports often downplay subjective symptoms such as pain, fatigue, or neurological issues. If imaging does not show dramatic damage, the doctor may conclude that complaints are disproportionate, even when symptoms are real and documented by treating providers.
Attacking Credibility
Perhaps most damaging is when an IME suggests exaggeration or malingering. Even subtle language—such as noting “inconsistent effort” or “non-organic findings”—can cast doubt on a plaintiff’s honesty.
The Legal Weight of IMEs
Courts allow IME reports into evidence, but they are not conclusive. An IME does not override your treating physician’s opinions. Instead, it creates a conflict in the medical evidence.
This conflict is often resolved by:
- Cross-examining the IME doctor
- Highlighting their financial ties to insurers
- Comparing exam duration to years of treatment
- Emphasizing the lack of an ongoing doctor-patient relationship
A skilled trial attorney knows how to expose the limitations and biases inherent in IMEs.
How Plaintiffs Should Prepare for an IME
While you cannot refuse a court-ordered IME, preparation matters.
Be Honest, Not Defensive
Answer questions truthfully, but do not volunteer unnecessary information. The exam is not a therapy session. Stick to facts about your condition and limitations.
Do Not Minimize or Exaggerate
Some plaintiffs understate pain to appear tough; others feel pressured to prove suffering. Both approaches can backfire. Consistency with your medical records is critical.
Understand the Doctor’s Role
The IME doctor is not there to help you. Keeping expectations realistic can prevent confusion or frustration during the exam.
Your attorney may also advise you on whether an observer is permitted or whether the exam can be recorded, depending on jurisdiction.
How Attorneys Counter IMEs
An experienced personal injury firm does not treat IMEs as surprises. They anticipate them.
At Alan Ripka & Associates, we prepare clients well in advance and respond strategically after the report is issued. This includes:
- Reviewing the IME for inaccuracies or omissions
- Comparing findings to long-term treatment records
- Using deposition testimony to expose bias
- Presenting treating physicians and specialists who know the client’s condition firsthand
IME opinions carry far less weight when placed in proper context.
Why IMEs Should Never Be Faced Alone
For injured plaintiffs, IMEs can feel intimidating and unfair. A single exam conducted for litigation purposes can appear to undermine months or years of legitimate treatment.
But IMEs are part of the system—not the final word.
Understanding their role, limitations, and strategic purpose helps ensure they do not derail a valid claim.
Conclusion: Knowledge Is Protection When Facing an IME
Independent Medical Exams are not neutral checkups. They are legal tools used by defendants to limit exposure and shift narratives. Without proper guidance, an IME can create confusion, anxiety, or unnecessary damage to a case.
With the right preparation and experienced advocacy, however, IMEs can be managed—and effectively challenged.
If you’ve been injured and are facing an IME or have concerns about how medical evaluations are being used in your case, informed legal counsel matters.
At Alan Ripka & Associates, we protect our clients at every stage—before, during, and after an IME.
📞 Call us today at (212) 661-7010 or visit AlanRipka.com to schedule your confidential consultation.
Your medical reality deserves to be heard—not rewritten by the defense.
