Our new “guest” post section, launched on 16 October and which captures your submitted content, anonymously and directly on the front end of our site, is proving to be quite popular! Here is our second submitted guest post titled “Unusual response from IME”, well worth a read as it – again – highlights how workcover insurance companies continue to subject injured workers to repeated and unnecessary examinations, and to pressure “unfavourable” IMEs so it can get the medical opinion it wants. It’s called doctor shopping!
Unusual response from an IME (Independent Medical Examiner)By A | Submitted on 21 Oct 2014
IME Dr A, the first IME versus IME Dr B, the second IME
Dr A. (IME) conducted a very competent assessment, I was allowed in during the assessment so l was very impressed.
Then the injured worker had to attend a second IME, l was allowed in to the rooms again as a support person. Dr B. (the 2nd IME) spent approx. 7 mins with the injured worker asking strange questions and informed the injured worker not to wear the back brace that had been requested to be worn by a surgeon, physiotherapist and pain management consultant and at the end of the 7 mins the injured worker asked IME Dr B. if he would like to know what medications he (the injured worker) is currently taking which include opioids, relaxants etc.
The reports were forwarded back to the workcover insurer.
IME Dr A’s report said the injured worker had no current work capacity now nor in the foreseeable future.
IME Dr B’s report stated the injured worker had a current work capacity of 15 hours per week.
IME Dr A replied to the insurer stating that he stood by his original report and that there is something very wrong when an eminent Dr is requested by a non-medical trained person to change his report to a report that is crossly in error.
I should also add that l personally perused the reports and have seen the additional 14 or so IME reports all of which except for Dr B’s report concur that the injured worker has no current capacity for work.
Workcover insurance companies continue to expend public monies pursuing medical reports from additional so called IME experts in the face of opinions adverse to it from IME experts already consulted, in the hope that, sooner or later, an IME will say something which gives it some comfort…
So, despite the overwhelming weight of this injured worker’s medical evidence, including that of IMEs, the workcover insurer attempted to contest, by means of subtle or overt coercion, or bribery (who knows?) an independent medical doctor’s opinion about the work capacity and severity of this injured worker’s condition. Sadly this sickening and immoral practice happens very often. Countless injured workers are also subjected to repeated and unnecessary examinations so the workcover insurance can get the medical opinion it wants. It’s called doctor shopping!