Medical expert case review · St. Louis
An expert who has only ever reached one side’s conclusion is not an expert. He is a purchase.
A medical case review here is an independent physician read of an injury claim file, done the same way for plaintiff firms, defense firms, workers’ compensation carriers and private insurers. It answers whether the injury is corroborated, the treatment indicated, apportionment possible and future care defensible; the fee does not vary with the side or the outcome.
This practice reviews potential cases for whoever asks. Substantial work has been done on behalf of workers’ compensation carriers, private insurers and the defense — particularly on recovery — alongside the treating work that plaintiff firms refer here. The review is the same document either way, which is the only thing that makes it worth anything.
Why side-agnostic is the point, not a disclaimer
Every retained expert is asked the same question on cross: how many times have you testified, and for whom. An expert whose answer is “plaintiffs, always” has already conceded the frame before the substance is reached. So has one whose answer is “carriers, always”.
The medicine does not know who is paying for the review. A diagnostic block either abolishes the pain or it does not; a nerve either conducts or it does not; a metabolic panel reads the same on both sides of a caption. If a review reaches a different conclusion depending on who requested it, the conclusion was never coming from the medicine.
THE COMMITMENT, STATED THE SAME WAY TO BOTH SIDES
We do not accept a review conditioned on reaching a particular conclusion, from either direction. The fee does not vary with the outcome. If the file does not support what the requesting party hoped for, that is what the report says — and requesting parties are told this before any engagement begins, not after.
Work on the carrier and defense side
Dr. Padda has done extensive work on behalf of workers’ compensation carriers, private insurance and the defense, with a particular concentration on recovery — whether the claimed course of treatment is supported, whether the impairment claimed matches the documented findings, and whether the projected future care is defensible or inflated.
That experience is the reason the plaintiff-side reviews are useful too. Knowing precisely how a file gets attacked is what makes it possible to say, honestly, which parts of a claim will survive that attack and which will not.
What a review addresses
- Is the claimed injury corroborated by anything other than the claimant’s report? If so, by what, and how strong is it — see objective corroboration.
- Does the imaging support what has been attributed to it, or is a base-rate finding being read as a diagnosis — see imaging and correlation.
- Is the treatment course indicated, and does each step follow from a question the previous step raised?
- Is the recovery course consistent with this person’s documented physiology, or with neither the injury nor the terrain — see terrain.
- Can any of it be apportioned, and if so on what basis — see causation and apportionment.
- Is the projected future care defensible, at a stated interval, for a diagnosis actually established — see life-care planning.
- Where a treatment is not covered, whether the non-coverage says anything at all about whether it works — see coverage is not evidence.
What a review will not do
- Offer an opinion on liability. That is not a medical question.
- Offer a standard-of-care opinion about another clinician. This practice does not do that for anyone.
- Diagnose a claimant who has not been examined, where the question requires an examination. A records-only review is labeled as one and its limits are stated in it.
- Use the word malingering as a conclusion drawn from a validity measure — those instruments do not establish intent, whichever side is asking. See effort and validity testing.
- Characterize a payer’s motive, or a claimant’s.
The separation from treating work
Where this practice is the treating physician, it does not also take a retained-expert engagement in the same case. The treating record’s strength is that the testing was ordered for care rather than for litigation, and taking a retained role in the same matter trades that away for a wider scope nobody needed — see expert testimony.
A review requested by a carrier or defense firm about a claimant treated elsewhere carries no such conflict, and is the more common arrangement on that side.
Common questions
Do you take defense and carrier work?
Yes, and have done so extensively, including workers’ compensation and private insurance work concentrated on recovery.
Will you review a file and tell me it is weak?
That is most of what a review is for. Parties are told before engagement that the conclusion is not negotiable.
Do you charge differently depending on the side?
No. The fee is for time at a stated rate and does not vary with the side, the outcome or the content of the finding.
Can you review records without examining the claimant?
Yes, and the report will say it is a records-only review and what that limits. Where an examination is needed to answer the question, the review says so rather than guessing — see objective findings.
Related reading
- Expert testimony
- Reading an independent examination
- Objective corroboration
- Causation and apportionment
- Future care and life-care plans
Send the file and say what you need decided
Causation, treatment course, impairment, future care, or all of it. We will tell you what the records can support before anyone is engaged.
12166 Natural Bridge Rd
St. Louis, MO 63044
Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and nothing on it is medical advice.
Sources
- Brinjikji W et al. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2015. PubMed 25430861
- Cohen SP et al. Multicenter, randomized, comparative cost-effectiveness study comparing 0, 1, and 2 diagnostic medial branch block treatment paradigms before lumbar facet radiofrequency denervation. Anesthesiology, 2010. PubMed 20613471
- Johnson-Greene D et al. Relationship between performance validity testing, disability status, and somatic complaints. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2013. PubMed 23121595
- Bühne D et al. Do patient characteristics affect the predictive validity of functional capacity evaluation performance?. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2022. PubMed 34709439
- Manchikanti L, Navani R, Navani A et al. Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for regenerative therapies in the management of chronic low back pain: 2025 update from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. Pain Physician, 2025. PubMed 41481869
- Raja SN et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain, 2020. PubMed 32694387