 |
 |
       |
    |
|
|
|
Shaw Chiropractic Accident Reconstructionists: Are they really what they appear to be? Times are changing and so must your strategy when trying the low velocity motor vehicle accident. This is particularly the case when the only damages are connective tissue damage (a more appropriate term to use when referring to the body’s soft tissues) Defense lawyers and insurance carriers have found what they believe to be their savior, the accident reconstructionist (AR). They pay them exorbitant fees for reports which at the surface seem to undermine your client’s entire case. Who are these people and what are they qualified to speak about? In this newsletter I will discuss some of the strategic approaches which plaintiff council should consider when notice is given of the dreaded and feared accident reconstructionist. First lets look at the "science" of accident reconstruction. AR is based upon the utilization of physics principles which require exact data. Many of the formulas used include multiple factors which CANNOT be accurately determined unless they are acquired within controlled laboratory settings. The mutifactorial components include friction coefficients of the road and tires, velocity of the striking and struck vehicles both before and after impact, the elastic and plastic properties of the vehicles and their shock attenuation systems as well as many others considerations which can at the very best be guestimated. When performing your cross examination of the AR you should have them perform the calculations in front of the jury using both the minimal and maximal ranges for each of the components of the formulas. You will find that the resultant findings can vary exponentially and that the GIGO rule applies. Garbage In Garbage Out. Since the AR was not present at the time of the injury there is no possible manner that they can be sure that their data is exact and therefore their opinions are invalid outside the controlled setting of a laboratory. What about the comparisons used by ARs in their reports. There was a study published in Spine several years ago in which the G-force of specific movements were measured. They utilized subjects and put them through a series of movements like a "plop" in a chair, stepping off a curb, quickly turning their heads. The research was severely flawed in many respects including subject selection, equipment utilized, testing parameters not to mention the obvious lack of control over the testing environment. How do you reliably reproduce a "plop" into a chair or any of the movements used in this research. The ARs are using this material as well as studies like the Lithuanian study to state that it would be impossible to be injured in low velocity injuries. I have had the opportunity to review the studies most used by the ARs and have written a summary of the significant flaws which you should address if the opportunity arises. This topic will be covered in great detail in an upcoming newsletter devoted specifically to the misuse and abuse of medical literature. In the interim should you encounter problems which need immediate response I would be happy to assist. Now lets examine the qualifications of the AR. Are ARs qualified to testify or even comment on bodily injury. The answer is clearly NO. In fact, unless the AR is disclosed as an expert on bodily injury I would recommend you object to any statement remotely touching the subject. (As a side note, don’t forget to disclose your expert physician as qualified in these subjects or you may face the same difficulty when your line of questioning moves towards injury physics). Lets assume that proper disclosure is made and the AR witness is going to testify. You should examine their qualifications by asking how many hours of anatomy, physiology, orthopedics, neurology, rhumatology, diagnosis, radiology and pathology they have studied. Ask them how many patients they have evaluated or what connective tissues are. Ask if they have earned a MD, DC or DO degree. Ask them to describe the origin, insertion and action of some muscles. Ask them if any of the following would effect the bodily damage and if they checked for them: direction of impact, state of awareness, head position, types of vehicles, vehicle status- moving or stopped, where the patient was seated, brakes applied, seatback position, seat belt use, shoulder harness use, head restraint position, occupant health history prior to injury (arthritis, diabetes, surgery, athlete), age, body type, height, gender. All of these factors are significant and can alter the occupants capacity to withstand even the most minor injury. The bottom line is that the AR is not qualified to comment on bodily damage and the jury needs to understand that his opinions on that subject are those of a layperson. These days ARs are doing quite a bit of work and as such are pumping out reports without proper foundation. Often times the data is provided to them by defense council. Therefore, determine if they actually visited the site, if they sent an investigator, if they measured the skid marks, if they have seen the vehicles and when (have they been altered or repaired?), if they have pictures of the accident site, if they obtained weather condition reports for that time frame, if they spoke to the occupants, etc. Also, you should clarify the relationship between the AR and the defense council. Question who retained their services. Ask what percent of their practice is for defense firms and how often they testify for defense lawyers. To sum up you need to establish that scientific impossibility to accurately determine the G-forces to the body outside the laboratory setting, the weakness and flaws of the AR research to correlate bodily damage to injury dynamics, the AR lack of qualifications to make determinations regarding bodily injury and the lack of objectivity of the AR who makes a living testifying. The insurance industry has raised it’s guns and declared war on your clients. They have decided that they are going to paint you, the client, and the treating doctors as frauds. They believe that the AR is the perfect weapon and they will use them at any cost even if it costs them more than a settlement would have. Why? Because they are trying to set a precedent and eliminate these claims. They are doing a good job and Its time to become proactive and challenge them on those cases that warrant it. Our chiropractic physicians have received
training on injury dynamics, treatment,
reporting, documentation and presentation.
We want to share this information with
you. If you are interested in a small
or large group presentation call us to
schedule a time. 800-232-6824 |
|
