Written by James M. Wheeler, MD, MPH, JD

Conflicting medical opinions are common in litigation, particularly in cases involving liability and causation. Attorneys and insurers must navigate these competing perspectives to determine which conclusions are best-founded scientifically. My role is to examine each opinion critically, comparing it against established evidence and methodologies.

Why Opinions Often Conflict

Just as medical professionals may interpret a laboratory test differently, they may interpret the same set of facts within a legal case differently, depending on their education, training, experience, research, and knowledge. These differences can confuse legal teams and create uncertainty.

The Need for Independent, Objective Analysis

An independent review brings objectivity to the process. By examining each opinion while controlling for and minimizing retrospective bias, I help clarify where conclusions align with science and where they may diverge.

Key Factors I Evaluate

When comparing opinions, I look at the methodology used, the consistency with medical evidence, and the overall scientific accuracy. Does the opinion rely on complete records? Does it acknowledge limitations? Does it align with accepted medical literature?

Value in Negotiations and Trial

Clear analysis of conflicting opinions gives attorneys confidence in negotiations and ensures that testimony presented in trial is scientifically based. It also helps identify weaknesses that opposing counsel may exploit.

Closing

A clear, objective review can bring resolution where confusion once existed. To explore how I analyze liability and causation opinions, visit jimwheelermd.com.