Tired of Messy Deposition Summaries? Here’s the Fix

Are you using the right deposition summary? A bit confused? If you create deposition summaries in-house or choose outsourcing, it should help you work faster. If not, the reason is your summaries are not 100% accurate. This blog shares smart solutions to fix it. Ready to make your summaries work for you? Let’s get started.

Mistakes IMEs Make and How to Avoid?

Mixing Facts with Personal Assumptions

As an IME, don’t mix what the claimant actually said with what you personally assume or believe. For example, the claimant may say, “I try to do chores but usually stop because of pain,” but you write, “Claimant does chores without problems.” This completely changes the meaning. If the claimant uses words like sometimes, usually, or rarely, keep those exact words in your report. Create a distinct section to add your opinion. This keeps your report transparent and credible.

Over-Summarizing Critical Details

A claimant says, “I lifted a heavy box and heard a pop in my back before falling to the floor.” You shortened this to “Pain started while lifting.” Now the word pop is missed and it is crucial. Words like pop, fell to the floor, sudden, sharp, and immediate shows the difference between muscle strain, disc herniation, fracture, or ligament injury.

For example, the reported ‘pop’ may suggest a structural injury and should be confirmed with imaging. Make sure your summary includes three things: the sensation word, when it happened, and what happened next.  

Treating Normal Differences as Dishonesty

You often see changes in pain, memory, or language and think the claimant is lying. For example, if someone says early in a deposition, “I can sit for 20 minutes,” and later says, “ I can sometimes sit for 30 minutes,” that’s not a contradiction. It shows their ability changes. Pain often fluctuates day to day, and memory under stress isn’t perfect.  

If you’re a skilled examiner, instead of calling this inconsistent, explain the context. Medication can reduce pain, and sitting in a chair with strong back support reduces strain and discomfort. These factors matter. Always include them in your summary to show your understanding and avoid bias.

Misinterpreting Claimant’s Words

Claimants are not familiar with medical terms. They explain their symptoms just like: my knees feel unstable, and I can’t trust them when walking, my back feels stuck, and I can’t move properly, I get a sharp pain that shoots. You make a mistake turning these phrases into direct diagnoses.

Unstable might mean pain, fear of falling, or real muscle weakness; stuck could be a muscle spasm or a stiff joint; and shooting pain might suggest nerve irritation, but it needs tests to confirm.  

The best approach is to write down the claimant’s exact words in quotation marks, consider what those words might mean, and wait for exam findings or imaging results before deciding what the actual problem is.

Presenting Claimant-Reported Diagnoses as Confirmed Facts

Sometimes, you accept statements like “My doctor told me I have a herniated disc” as confirmed diagnoses without checking medical records. Expert IMEs know that people often misremember or misunderstand what doctors say. So, they clearly state that the diagnosis is reported by the claimant, not verified. For example:  

“Claimant reports being told they have a herniated disc; no records provided to confirm. Recommend review of MRI and treating notes.”

Experienced IMEs use a verification hierarchy:

• Claimant report (lowest level)

• Treating the provider’s records

• Imaging or lab results

• Specialist interpretation (highest level)

Always place claimant-reported diagnoses at the lowest level unless you have proof. This shows medical rigor and makes your report defensible in court.

Highlighting Evidence That Supports What You Believe

If you think the claimant is not very limited, you might highlight that they walked 2 miles on vacation but ignore months of physical therapy, repeated reports of pain, and times they tried to return to work but couldn’t continue. This creates bias. Review all evidence by separating it into two groups:  

• Evidence of limitation (therapy notes, pain reports, unsuccessful work attempts)

• Evidence of ability (walking, doing chores, part-time work)

Include both in your deposition summary. A simple test for fairness is: “If this fact supported the opposite opinion, would I still include it?” If the answer is no, you’re showing bias. Use balanced phrasing, such as: “Although the claimant walked 2 miles once during vacation, this is inconsistent with the overall pattern of limited endurance shown in multiple therapy notes.” This shows strong clinical reasoning.

Outsourcing? Consider This Before Choosing a Provider

1. Not every statement in a deposition impacts medical causation. Expertise lies in identifying testimony that affects injury mechanism, symptom progression, treatment decisions, and functional outcomes. This level of analysis develops only through repeated exposure to IME-specific deposition work.

2. Expert providers preserve how statements relate to timelines, pre-existing conditions, alternative explanations, and reported versus objective findings. This context is essential for IMEs forming well-reasoned and defensible opinions.

3. Complex IME cases often involve multiple depositions across treating physicians, retained experts, and fact witnesses. An expert provider tracks inconsistencies, evolving narratives, and subtle changes in testimony across witnesses and dates. This continuity allows IMEs to evaluate reliability and reconcile conflicting information efficiently.

4. Expert summarizers capture qualifying terms such as degrees of certainty, reliance on patient history, or limitations in medical conclusions. This ensures the language is accurate and in context, recognizing its importance to medical opinion integrity and expert credibility.

5. High-level providers also structure deposition summaries around disputed medical and factual issues rather than following transcript order alone. They emphasize testimony related to causation, necessity of treatment, permanency, impairment, and future care. This issue-focused approach allows IMEs to quickly assess testimony in relation to their analysis.

6. Whether the case involves a routine injury or a catastrophic claim with extensive expert involvement, experienced providers adjust the depth, structure, and analytical focus accordingly. They understand when concise summaries are sufficient and when detailed examination is required to support medical conclusions.

To sum up,

If your deposition summaries consistently help you reach more confident medical opinions, you’re doing it right. If not, it’s time to refine your process or partner with experts who understand the medical and legal nuances of IME work. When done correctly, deposition summaries are no longer frustrating. It supports good medical judgment and strengthens your credibility in every case.