Reasoned evaluations both sides can rely on.

Some medical-legal evaluators make the mistake of trying to make both sides happy in a poor or unethical manner. Some favor one side or another due to their default way of thinking. But our job is to follow the law and use objective standards of evaluation. What is my philosophy for serving a highly contentious matter fairly? To explain my reasoning in detail.

It is often frustrating, from an attorney's perspective, to read conclusions in a report with no reasoning, or poorly explained reasoning. Though I am an internal medicine physician and my main job is to be a primary care doctor to my patients, I still carry my philosophical training. My academic background is in philosophy. In philosophy you must always give your reasoning — and reason well. It would be inappropriate to advance a conclusion without a tightly reasoned argument. In this way, my fellow attorney, I am like you: the field of law depends on putting together tight arguments and reasoning your way to a conclusion, not inserting it without context. When I handle your evaluation, you have both my medical and philosophical sides working through your case.

In summary, my approach to the medical-legal evaluation: be committed to fairness and objectivity without playing favorites; respect attorneys' time by reading and answering cover letters; and explain my reasoning in detail.