Objectification of injuries and consequences in expert medical opinions

Abstract

Background: Only unequivocal evidence confirming the total extent of injury. Biomechanical analysis, objectifications of permanent consequences after injury and objectification, whether such injuries influence life activities of an injured person, should be the basics for preparation of expert medical opinion. To make a necessary distinction from the previous injuries or illnesses that might have influence on current health state of a patient and its treatment, analysis of all medical records of a certain injured person is needed. Therefore this are inevitable steps in preparation of an expert medical opinion. In cases when medical opinion should explain disability of a patient as a consequence of a certain contractual relationship, the contract should be taken into consideration when such opinions is prepared. Methods: 500 opinions have been retrospectively analysed, selected at random out of 3452 opinions, submitted in claims for damages at Zavarovalnica Maribor, d. d., in the period from January 2001 until January 2006. Thirteen typical data have been analysed and evaluated on the basis of objective evidences. Results: On the basis of analyses it has been established that there is a great difference between principles of objectification and the data in analysed opinions. It has been noticed the most obvious deviation in biomechanical analysis (95 %), in records of decreased life activities (90 %), in all medical records of an injured person (65 %) and in objectification of permanent consequences after injuries (55 %). Conclusions: As results of analysis demonstrate, there are significant differences in preparations of expert and medical opinions in Slovenia, particularly when basic principles are analysed that need to be considered when writing such opinions. Irrational avoidance of basic principle of objectification, nomination of experts without licence in certain fields of medicine, avoidance of objectification of subjective statements of injured people and lack of experience or consequences of disrespect of basic principles in preparation of expert opinion all lead towards curtailment of those who pay the claims, especially in cases of banal injuries. Such opinions often mislead injured persons as well and also the ones who order such opinions and especially judges in court proceedings. In the whole European area anybody who prepares expert or medical opinion should respect basic principles of professional and expert literature. However in Slovenia the supervision has not been sufficient enough until now due to lack of regulations and resources.