MedCo has published a warning about the quality of medical reports, stating that it has recently seen an uptick in complaints about errors, most of which appear to result from experts failing to check the contents of the report before signing it.
For solicitors and insurers instructing medical evidence, this is worth reading closely. MedCo is not describing a presentational problem. It describes errors which, if missed and sent to the compensator, can lead to a challenge to the claimant's credibility.
The errors MedCo is seeing
MedCo gave examples. A claimant sitting in the back of a car described as having injured their knee due to contact with the dashboard or steering column. Children described as unable to work and as experiencing anxiety whilst driving.
These are not subtle examples. They are capable of making a report internally illogical, even though MedCo notes that such errors may still be missed.
Why MedCo is sceptical of "typographical error" explanations
MedCo says that when it investigates, it is often advised that these are typographical errors. Its response is direct: it seems unlikely that these are typographical errors, and it is more likely that the errors are driven by the software that the expert is using.
MedCo then closes that door. Inadequate or inappropriate software is not an acceptable reason for inaccuracies.
MedCo does not identify the software mechanism, and neither will we. The practical point is narrower, and it is the one MedCo makes: software-driven text still has to be checked by the expert before signature. Text that reads fluently has not necessarily been read.
What the errors actually cost
MedCo sets out two levels of harm. At the very least, these errors lead to the delay and inconvenience of reports having to be returned to experts for amendment.
The position is worse where nobody catches it. MedCo says that if the error is not identified by the MRO, the claimant, or their solicitor, and the report is sent to the compensator, this can lead to the compensator challenging the claimant's credibility.
That is the risk worth sitting with. The error belongs to the report, but the consequence lands on the claimant. Where a report describes a mechanism of injury that does not fit the accident circumstances, MedCo says the compensator may challenge credibility, and that challenge is directed at the claimant rather than at the software.
Where the duty sits
This is the line those instructing medical evidence should note. MedCo states that the expert's duty is to the court, that all reports must be thoroughly checked before they are signed, bearing in mind the report includes a statement of truth, and that the duty is the expert's alone and cannot be passed on to the MRO or instructing solicitor.
That is unambiguous, and it cuts both ways.
It means an expert cannot treat anyone else's checks as their proofreading stage. The expert signs a report verified by a statement of truth, and should not do so unless they have checked that it reflects their opinions, identifies the factual matters within their own knowledge, and accurately records the material instructions and assumptions on which their opinion is based.
It also means no MRO can offer to carry that duty for the expert. An MRO can administer the instruction and raise what looks wrong. What an MRO cannot do is assume the expert's responsibility for the content, because MedCo is explicit that the duty does not transfer.
MedCo ends by saying monitoring will continue and appropriate action will be taken to address poor quality reporting.
What this means in practice
For instructing parties, MedCo's comments highlight three practical report-quality points.
Reports can be read against the claim, not only for completeness. The MedCo examples would survive a checklist that asks whether the required sections are present. They come to light when someone asks whether the mechanism of injury fits the accident circumstances.
Software-driven or repeated details are worth attention. Seating position and mechanism of injury. Age-inappropriate content, particularly employment and driving in a child's report. Symptoms and functional effects that do not match the history taken.
Apparent errors are worth raising early. A report returned for amendment costs time. If a contradiction is sent to the compensator, MedCo says it can lead to the compensator challenging the claimant's credibility.
How we approach report quality
Expert Medical Examination is a Medical Reporting Organisation registered with MedCo. We arrange the instruction, the appointment and the records, and we carry out an administrative quality review of the report we receive before it reaches you.
We are deliberate about what that review is. We compare the report with the instruction and the available claim information, and raise apparent inconsistencies or internal contradictions for the expert to address, including the kind of internal contradiction MedCo describes. Where a query requires the expert's consideration or amendment, the report goes back to the expert.
What we do not do, and what MedCo makes clear no MRO can do, is take over the expert's duty. The opinion is the expert's. The verification by statement of truth is the expert's. Our role is to administer the instruction and raise apparent issues we identify, not to offer an assurance the rules do not permit us to give.
Contact Expert Medical Examination
To instruct Expert Medical Examination, or to discuss a case, visit www.expertmedical.co.uk, call 0203 8233 222 or email info@expertmedical.co.uk.