Erratum to: Cherry-Picking Records in Independent Medical Examinations: Strategies for Intervention to Mitigate a Legal and Ethical Imbroglio

Abstract

This article was originally published with errors that were introduced during the editing process. The corrected version of this article appears below. Abstract Independent medical examinations (IMEs) theoretically construe a means of “independently” assessing a claimant’s physical and psychological status, as well as to determine whether treatment that has been and will potentially be provided is reasonable and necessary. IMEs may be undertaken both for the plaintiff and defense or related adversaries. In the present case, we focus on IMEs that are requested by insurers. One can query the degree to which IMEs are actually “independent.” It has been posited that one of the ways in which claims managers contribute to potential bias against claimants is through a process of selectively providing examiners with medical records, which has been described as “cherry-picking.” Despite the existence of rules and laws that are designed to prevent cherry-picking, the practice still occurs. This analysis discusses the legal as well as ethical implications of cherry-picking and its potential to cause or exacerbate psychological injury that a claimant may experience. The authors propose that psychologists as well as attorneys can advocate for their vulnerable patients/clients in cases of cherry-picking. A recent case study from the clinical practice of the first author in which he so acted is provided. We conclude with a discussion of the ethical implications of the psychologist’s intervention.