Featured Articles

How Can a Biomechanical Engineer Assist Attorneys in Medical Malpractice Cases?

Michael Hill, Ph.D., P.E. | Biomechanics | Qforensics.com

Medical malpractice cases often involve complex medical records, technical evidence, and disputed opinions about how an injury occurred. Physicians provide valuable insights into diagnosis and treatment. Biomechanical engineers offer a different perspective by analyzing the physical forces, movements, and mechanical events involved in an injury occurring during a medical procedure. Their expertise can help attorneys evaluate whether the alleged medical negligence could have led to the claimed injuries.

In this article, we'll explore how a biomechanical engineer assists attorneys in medical malpractice cases, the types of analyses they perform – including several case studies – and why their testimony can strengthen a legal strategy.

Biomechanical Engineering

Biomechanical engineers are often employed in the medical device field by device manufacturers, government regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), universities, or hospital complexes involved in clinical trials. Biomechanical engineers typically work alongside physicians. Whereas physicians explain diagnoses, treatment decisions, and the applicable medical standard of care, biomechanical engineers explain the underlying physical mechanics of the injury.

Biomechanical engineers perform laboratory tests, dissections, and computer simulations of various human body segments to understand which movements will stretch and stress muscles, tendons, ligaments, and other tissues. The design of orthopedic implants is performed by those knowledgeable in biomechanics, as both the forces that will be applied to the implants and the strength of the implants to withstand these forces must be known during the design and development phases. In cardiovascular applications, which primarily involve the heart and blood vessels, biomechanical engineers develop artificial hearts, heart valves, stents, catheters, and devices for treating aneurysms and removing blood clots. Most biomechanical engineers have education and training in the broader field of biomedical engineering, and they also work in other medical fields, such as neurophysiology, which focuses on understanding the electrical signals in the brain, spinal cord, and nerves.

Biomechanics research is applied in identifying mechanisms of injury and the subsequent analysis of injury mitigation strategies. In trauma biomechanics, mechanical principles are used to understand how injuries occur to bones, joints, organs, and tissues.

The Role of a Biomechanical Engineer in Medical Malpractice Cases

Biomechanical engineering is the application of mechanical engineering principles to biological systems, particularly the human body. Biomechanical engineers use mathematical modeling, computer simulations, imaging studies, laboratory testing, and published scientific literature to evaluate injury mechanisms. Unlike physicians, biomechanical engineers generally do not diagnose medical conditions or determine whether a physician met the applicable standard of care. Instead, they analyze whether the physical evidence is consistent with the alleged mechanism of injury and whether the claimed injury could reasonably have resulted from a specific event.

Medical malpractice litigation often centers on proving four essential elements:

• Duty of care
• Breach of the standard of care
• Consistency
• Damages

While physicians typically testify regarding the diagnosed medical condition or the standard of care, biomechanical engineers primarily address whether the mechanics of an event are consistent with the injuries claimed. Biomechanical engineers use mathematical modeling, computer simulations, imaging studies, laboratory testing, and the published scientific literature to evaluate injury mechanisms.

Below are several case studies based on real-world incidents in which a biomechanical engineer was retained:

Case 1: Sciatic Nerve Injuries during Hip Replacement Surgery

“Foot drop” refers to the difficulty in lifting the front part of the foot, which can occur from damage to the sciatic nerve. Such nerve damage may occur during hip replacement surgery, where the sciatic nerve can be compressed by the retractor used to access the hip. This compression may directly damage the nerve, and the forces can be increased due to tension on the nerve as it is pulled away from its tether at the knee.

After undergoing hip replacement surgery, a female patient complained of foot drop. A forensic biomechanical engineer was retained to investigate the case. As part of the investigation, the engineer:

• Inspected the hip retractor
• Reviewed the medical records provided
• Examined peer-reviewed literature on the biomechanical forces involved during hip replacement surgeries.
• Determined what the forces likely were during the procedure and how they were related to the failure strength of the sciatic nerve and its proximal divisions towards the knee.

The investigation concluded that retraction forces pose a known risk for sciatic nerve injury, and the forces involved did not exceed what is reasonably expected during this procedure. Moreover, clinical studies have shown a high incidence of foot drop following successful hip replacement surgeries. Sciatic nerve damage is a known risk and consistent with the forces typically applied during hip replacement surgeries. In this case, the biomechanical engineer determined, by using the laws of physics and mechanical principles, that the orthopedic surgeon did not have to apply unreasonably high forces for the injury to occur.

Case 2: Abdominal Injury during Laparoscopic Procedure

A female patient experienced severe complications following a laparoscopic gastric bypass procedure. During the surgery, a pneumoperitoneum was created using a Veress needle, which involves injecting carbon dioxide into the abdominal cavity to separate the abdominal wall from the internal organs for better visualization. However, the pneumoperitoneum could not be maintained, leading the surgical team to resort to open abdominal surgery. Subsequently, the patient developed problems related to a perforated bowel. The plaintiff claimed that the failure of the Veress needle led to the bowel perforation.

The retained biomechanical engineer:

• Performed a joint inspection of the subject Veress needle
• Inspected the system used to insufflate the abdomen during the procedure
• Procured and tested an exemplar needle

The inspection revealed no issues with the device, and the exemplar needle functioned correctly. A review of the literature and FDA documentation, including the design history file (DHF), showed no regulatory compliance issues. The biomechanical engineer concluded that there were no problems with the medical devices involved and that the bowel damage was consistent with either the insertion of the Veress needle, which is a known risk of laparoscopic surgery, or the subsequent open abdominal surgery.

Case 3: Artery Injury during Endovascular Coiling Procedure

A patient presented to a neuroendovascular surgeon with a large cerebral (brain) aneurysm in the posterior communicating artery. The surgeon attempted a coiling procedure in which a catheter was inserted into the femoral artery and advanced to the Circle of Willis through a carotid artery. During deployment of the thin platinum coils into the aneurysm, some of the coils deployed into the catheter. When the surgeon attempted to retrieve the misplaced coil by pulling on the catheter, it resulted in damage to the walls of the carotid siphon, which is the twisted segment of the carotid artery in the neck, leading to the development of a pseudoaneurysm. A biomechanical engineer reviewed the available documentation and information related to the procedure. The engineer concluded that the mechanical failure of the device prevented it from being retrieved, resulting in the damage to the arterial wall. Therefore, the issue was attributed to the medical device itself, not the surgeon or surgical procedure, which was consistent with the damage to the carotid artery.

Summary

Biomechanical engineers play a crucial role in medical malpractice litigation by providing objective, science-based analysis of injury mechanisms and causation. Their expertise helps attorneys evaluate complex evidence, reconstruct medical events, assess the plausibility of injury claims, and their testimony can simplify highly technical concepts for judges and juries while supporting evidence-based conclusions.

By collaborating with physicians and legal professionals, biomechanical engineers contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how injuries occurred, assisting attorneys in building stronger cases supported by engineering principles and factual evidence. Whether investigating patient falls, orthopedic injuries, surgical positioning injuries, or medical device failures, their analysis can be instrumental in achieving fair and informed legal outcomes.

About the Author
Michael Hill, Ph.D., P.E., is a Biomechanical Engineer at Quality Forensic Engineering, LLC. His background is in cardiovascular and orthopedic biomechanics, injury consistency analysis, mechanical design, instrumentation, and experimental analysis. Dr. Hill’s doctoral dissertation topic was on brain aneurysm and artery wall biomechanics, and he has worked with neuroendovascular surgeons on research projects aimed at improving medical devices and techniques. He also performed laboratory work with orthopedic surgeons that resulted in techniques to help alleviate sciatic nerve injuries during open hip surgery. Dr. Hill has lectured at universities, and his research findings have been published in 17 academic articles. He has presented at over 40 international and national scientific conferences and his work has been extensively cited by others. His primary focus is on injury consistency analysis, for both plaintiff and defense cases.

Challenging Wage Loss and Future Care Claims Through Vocational and Life Care Planning Analysis

Julie Sawyer-Little, Sawyer Consulting, LLC

Claims for lost earning capacity and future care costs often drive exposure in personal injury, medical malpractice, and catastrophic injury litigation. While vocational evaluations and life care plans are frequently presented as authoritative projections of a plaintiff’s economic future, these reports warrant close and methodical scrutiny. The assumptions underlying them, the scope of opinions offered, and the degree to which recommendations are supported by medical evidence can materially affect case valuation, settlement strategy, and trial presentation. For defense attorneys, the goal is to identify unsupported conclusions, manage expert roles effectively, and develop defensible alternatives grounded in the clinical record.

Integrating Expert Roles with Early Case Strategy

Although vocational evaluations and life care plans are often paired, they serve distinct analytical functions. A vocational evaluation is an objective assessment of employability, addressing education, skills, and earning capacity, while a life care plan projects future medical needs. Defense counsel should evaluate and obtain opinions regarding permanency, Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) status, and work restrictions. Engaging an expert early in the process—whether as a consultant, peer reviewer, or rebuttal witness—allows for a proactive rather than reactive strategy. Consulting experts assist with internal case strategy, while peer reviewers evaluate the methodology and defensibility of opposing opinions.

A critical component of this early strategy is identifying unsupported disability claims. When a plaintiff claims total disability, a rebuttal expert evaluates for any discrepancies which may exist between the clinical record and their functional status. For instance, if a plaintiff claims an inability to return to sedentary work but engages in physically demanding hobbies or home activities, the vocational expert can highlight this "functional gap." Utilizing a Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA), the vocational expert can often provide an analysis of the plaintiff’s skills that remain highly marketable, shifting the narrative from "unemployable" to "underemployed by choice."

Deconstructing Wage Loss and Life Care Plan "Wish Lists"

Effective defense analysis must narrow functional limitations to the facts of the case. In wage loss claims, demonstrating residual earning capacity through realistic occupations can significantly reduce claimed losses. This is particularly vital when addressing neuropsychological reports, which require translation from clinical jargon into functional, workplace guidelines. The vocational expert applies this information to analyze employment options which may exist for the injured party. This analysis provides the information and data needed to argue for a specific vocational trajectory supported by psychometrics and localized labor market data, rather than relying on the plaintiff’s subjective complaints of "brain fog", fatigue, or chronic pain.

Similarly, life care plans should reflect demonstrated need rather than assumption. Many plaintiff-oriented plans function as a "wish list," including lifelong therapies or equipment never actually prescribed by a treating or consulting physician. By replacing inflated estimates with evidence-based cost projections, the defense aligns the case with more realistic damages. This is especially relevant in workers’ compensation cases, where attendant care recommendations often warrant a more rigorous functional and environmental assessment than a standard plaintiff report provides. This scrutiny ensures that recommendations reflect appropriate levels of care, avoid duplication, and are strictly attributable to the injury at issue.

Leveraging Strategic Analysis for Fair Outcomes

In cases approaching mediation or trial, comparative analyses offer powerful tools to challenge high-end retail costs and unrealistic care frequencies. Even without a full rebuttal report, these insights can be crucial when records are incomplete. Ultimately, vocational and life care planning opinions depend entirely on the validity of their underlying assumptions. By prioritizing functional evidence and expert collaboration, defense counsel can present a comprehensive, evidence-based roadmap that challenges the opposition's narrative and achieves a fair, informed outcome.

About Julie Sawyer-Little
Julie Sawyer-Little, MS, OTR/L, CRC, CLCP, is a seasoned vocational expert and life care planner with a Master’s Degree in Rehabilitation Counseling and Vocational Evaluation and an undergraduate degree in Occupational Therapy from East Carolina University. Since 1998, she has specialized in providing defense counsel with the strategic analysis, peer reviews, and expert testimony needed to challenge unsupported claims in complex personal injury, medical malpractice, and workers' compensation litigation.

A Public Records Refresher And Best Practices

Marissa Jensen, Of Counsel, Cranfill Sumner LLP
&
Jake Stewart, Partner, Cranfill Sumner LLP

With the increasing use of AI by pro se litigants and the ever-changing technological landscape, dealing with a constant stream of public records requests can be daunting for already understaffed municipalities and local government entities. A clear understanding of the North Carolina Public Records Act coupled with best practices will ensure a more efficient, streamlined approach in handling and responding to public records requests, especially in situations involving pro se litigants.

The Basics

Chapter 132 of the North Carolina General Statutes governs public records. N.C.G.S. § 132-1 contains a broad definition of “public records,” which covers “all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of the North Carolina government or its subdivisions.”

N.C.G.S. § 132-6 mandates that every custodian of public records shall permit any record in the custodian’s custody to be inspected and examined at reasonable times and under reasonable supervision by any person. Moreover, the statute mandates that the entity furnish copies thereof upon payment of any fees prescribed by law. The statute also allows for this requirement to be satisfied by making public records available online in a format that allows a person to view the public record and print or save the public record to obtain a copy. As technology makes these processes more widely available and increases the ability and access to submit public records requests, many governmental and public entities (especially those in metropolitan areas) utilize online platforms to assist in handling public records requests. There are several different popular online platforms available, and these platforms can be extremely helpful in streamlining and standardizing the public records request process, especially when there are multiple parties involved in reviewing and answering requests.

Chapter 132 designates certain items that “shall” be public records and designates others that are not considered public records. Although a complete discussion is beyond the scope of this article, here are some notable designations in Chapter 132:

What is NOT Considered a Public Record?
Records of Criminal Investigations

One of the most notable exceptions to the broad definition of public records, records of criminal investigations are not public records as defined by N.C.G.S. § 132-1. Neither are records of criminal intelligence information compiled by public law enforcement agencies or records of investigations conducted by the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission. The statute further provides, however, that records of criminal investigations or criminal intelligence information may be released by court order.

The statute goes on to carve out several items that “shall” be public records, including the contents of 911 calls received by or on behalf of public law enforcement agencies – except, however, for contents of a 911 call that reveal the natural voice, name, address, telephone number, or other information that may identify the caller, victim, or witness. Under the statute, the contents of 911 calls may be released in the form of a written transcript or altered voice reproduction, provided that the original “shall be provided under process to be used as evidence in any relevant civil or criminal proceeding.”

As of July 9, 2025, this subsection of the statute was expanded to include contents of any 911 call or other emergency telephone call where the caller is less than 18 years of age. Therefore, contents of any 911 or other emergency telephone call where the caller is less than 18 years of age is not a public record within the meaning of the Public Records Act.

Personnel Records

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 153A-98, certain information kept in personnel files (listed in subsection (b) of the statute) of county employees is considered public record. However, all other information contained in a county employee’s personnel file is confidential and shall be open to inspection only in several instances enumerated in the statute (listed in subsection (c)). The statute also provides that certain information regarding any sworn law enforcement officer shall not be disclosed to an employee or any other person including information that might identify the residence of a sworn law enforcement officer or emergency contact information. N.C.G.S. § 160A-168 lists similar provisions for employees of cities and towns.

Confidential Communications by Legal Counsel

N.C.G.S. § 132-1.1 provides that attorney-client communications to any public board, council, commission or other governmental body of the State or of any county, municipality or other political subdivision or unit of government made within the scope of the attorney-client relationship are confidential and not considered public record. This specifically includes written communications (or copies thereof) concerning any claim against or on behalf of the governmental body or the governmental entity for which such body acts, or concerning the prosecution, defense, settlement, or litigation of any judicial action, or any administrative or other type of proceeding to which the governmental body is a party or by which it is or may be directly affected.

Law Enforcement Agency Recordings

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A, law enforcement agency recordings are not public records as defined by N.C.G.S. § 132-1. They are also not personnel records as defined in Part 7 of Chapter 126 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Rather, N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A sets out a specific procedure that dictates release of law enforcement agency recording.

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently addressed this portion of the Public Records Act in State v. Chemuti and ultimately held that criminal defendants in district court cannot compel the release of recordings governed by N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A through a subpoena. In its opinion, the Court’s analysis focused on statutory interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A, and the Court rejected the rigid interpretation of isolated provisions proffered by the defendant in favor of a reading compelled “by the whole of the statutory text.” As a result of this opinion, it is clear that the procedure laid out in the statue is the exclusive means to obtain law enforcement agency recordings.

Training Materials and Sensitive Public Safety Information

Sensitive public security information is another notable exception to the broad definition of public records under N.C.G.S. § 132-1, and is not considered a public record. Sensitive public security information encompasses a range of items, including: information containing specific details of public security plans and arrangements or the detailed plans and drawings of public buildings and infrastructure facilities, plans, schedules, or other documents that include information regarding patterns or practices associated with executive protection and security, specific security information or detailed plans, patterns, or practices associated with prison or local confinement facilities operations, and specific security information or detailed plans, patterns, or practices to prevent or respond to criminal, gang, or organized illegal activity.

A request for this type of material might include a request for training materials related to software used by a police department for conducting forensic examinations on cell phones. Because law enforcement uses this type of software in conducting criminal investigations, this constitutes not only sensitive public safety information but also potentially records of criminal intelligence information.

Best Practice – Standardized Language, Brevity, and Consistency

Typically, in reviewing public records requests in connection with any given entity, patterns may emerge in terms of frequency and content of certain types of requests. For example, when handling public records requests on behalf of a police or sheriff’s department, frequent requests may surface from criminal defendants (whose cases are in District Court) for items such as 911 calls, criminal reports, and other items that would typically be included in criminal discovery. Counties or municipalities may frequently encounter requests related to certain contracts. For example, requests may be commonly received related to contracts for healthcare or dental services provided to a detention center, meal service in detention centers, or the provision of uniforms to a police department or sheriff’s office. Media outlets and online “watchdog” groups may also commonly request certain statistics from various governmental entities.

Standardized responses tailored to certain recurring fact scenarios can be helpful to ensure requests are handled uniformly and to prevent government entities from having to “reinvent the wheel.” Standardized responses are most efficient when the language is brief, clear, and concise. Although each public records request should be thoroughly analyzed individually, standardized replies can streamline the response process and make the process and procedure more efficient.

Handling public records requests in a consistent manner is also an important best practice. Written policies pertaining to public records request procedures can be helpful to streamline the process and increase efficiency. For example, in an effort to minimize overly burdensome requests, municipalities may put into place policies requiring payment for IT or third party vendors to compile records.

Understanding the basics of Chapter 132 and keeping best practices in mind can aid in making the public records request process smoother for all parties involved.

This article provided by NCADA Government Practice Group

In the minds of your clients, trust and security are intertwined. As stewards of confidential client information, law firms must go beyond minimum compliance, setting a gold standard that safeguards data, builds confidence and differentiates forward-looking practices from the rest. The following seven strategies, drawn from real-world experience in legal technology, outline actionable ways law firms can fortify their defenses while making security a pillar of client trust and firm reputation.

Learn more about these seven strategies in this article written by Jacob Mathai, Chief Information Officer, with Veritext here:  Top 7 Ways Law Firms Can Fortify Their Security and Protect Client Trust.

______________________________

Reprinted with the permission of Jacob Mathai, Chief Information, and Law.com. This article was originally published in September 2025.

By DepoScripts

Construction litigation is driven by documents—plans, revisions, change orders, RFIs, and technical specifications that evolve over the life of a project. By the time a case reaches deposition, those documents are no longer static. They represent a timeline of decisions, changes, and responsibilities.

When structure, visibility, and coordination are lacking, the result is more than inconvenience—it is loss of clarity, wasted time, and, in some cases, weakened legal positions.

The Challenge: Volume Without Structure

Without a clear structure for referencing evidence on the record, alignment quickly breaks down. General references like “the plans” or “that change order” create ambiguity, making testimony harder to follow and the record less reliable.

A clear record depends on specificity, including:

• Exhibit number
• Title and date
• Source of the document
• The exact portion being discussed

These details ensure all parties remain aligned and that the transcript is usable long after the deposition concludes.

Electronic Exhibit Handling: A Necessary Upgrade

The shift to electronic exhibits using iPads or tablets has significantly improved how construction depositions are managed—when done correctly. Instead of flipping through stacks of paper plans or searching for the “latest revision,” attorneys can move seamlessly between documents while maintaining a clean, traceable record.

With properly organized digital exhibits:

• Documents can be pre-loaded, indexed, and instantly accessible through a secure link
• Each exhibit can be clearly marked and displayed in real time
• All parties can view the same document simultaneously, eliminating confusion
• Version control becomes easier to maintain and identify on the record

However, technology alone is not the solution. It must be paired with discipline and experience in how exhibits are introduced and referenced.

Enhanced Visibility: Zoom & Realtime Feeds

The ability to see, hear, and read the deposition at the same time is both critical and powerful.

Real-time transcription provides a consistent layer of visibility and control, whether attending in person or remotely. It allows legal teams to stay fully engaged by following the deposition as it unfolds—watching the witness, reviewing exhibits, and reading testimony simultaneously. This multi-layered perspective helps reduce missed details and keeps all participants aligned.

When real-time is combined with remote attendance through Zoom, this visibility extends to experts, clients, and co-counsel in any location—ensuring the entire team remains informed and engaged.

Key advantages include:

• Consistent Access Anywhere: Remote participants maintain the same level of visibility as those in the room
• Immediate Awareness of the Record: Testimony is visible as it is captured, allowing issues to be addressed in the moment
• Clearer Exhibit Tracking: Teams can confirm exactly which document and version is being referenced
• Improved Efficiency: Fewer interruptions, less repetition, and reduced time spent locating materials

The result is a more controlled, proactive deposition, where the record is not only created but actively managed as it develops.

Managing the Record: Precision Through Experience

In complex, document-intensive depositions like those in construction litigation, the court reporter is not just capturing words—they are managing a highly technical, multi-party record.

Experienced reporters understand:

• The importance of clear marking of exhibits for identification
• How to track multiple speakers and control overlapping dialogue
• The need for precision when testimony references complex documents

This becomes especially important when depositions involve expert testimony, rapid movement between exhibits, and multiple attorneys examining the same witness. A well-managed record ensures that when the transcript is reviewed—by attorneys, clients, or the court—it remains clear, organized, and reliable.

When supported by an experienced court reporting agency, this level of precision is not left to chance. The right team anticipates the complexity, maintains structure throughout depositions, and ensures the logistics are handled seamlessly, so that all participants remain supported and each deposition runs efficiently.

A Unified Approach: Bringing It All Together

Successful construction depositions are not defined by any single element. They are the result of structure, visibility, coordination, and experience working together in real time.

From how exhibits are organized and introduced, to how testimony is captured, displayed, and tracked, each component plays a role in shaping the clarity and reliability of the record. Electronic exhibit handling, real-time transcription, and remote access through Zoom are powerful tools, but their value is fully realized only when they are aligned and executed with precision.

When supported by an experienced court reporting team, these elements create a deposition environment where:

• Documents are clearly identified and consistently referenced
• Testimony is easy to follow, both in the moment and in the final transcript
• Attorneys can move efficiently without losing control of the record
• All participants, whether in the room or remote, remain fully aligned and engaged

The result is not just a smoother deposition, but a stronger, more dependable record. One that accurately reflects the case and can be confidently used throughout litigation.

Just as important is the team behind the process. Working with a court reporting agency that understands the unique demands of construction litigation and intentionally pairs you with the right reporter and support team is essential. With the right expertise in place, challenges are anticipated, structure is maintained, and the flow of the deposition is supported from start to finish, while logistics are handled seamlessly so all participants remain supported and each deposition runs efficiently.

At the end of the day, it is not just about capturing the record. It is about getting it right.

“Same rules, different world” is a useful mindset for any lawyer who practices across county lines. Every time you stand up in court, file a motion, submit a brief, or speak to a jury, you’re doing it in a specific location—not in a generic courtroom where everything works the same way everywhere. The statewide rules travel with you, but local practice does, too, and it can quietly shape whether your case moves smoothly or runs into avoidable friction.

The pointers below are written for young lawyers building instincts, but they are just as useful for seasoned attorneys who find themselves in an unfamiliar venue.

1) Start With Local Geography (Yes, It Matters)

North Carolina has 100 counties and multiple judicial divisions. Those lines matter more than they look on paper. Small, avoidable signals that you’re unfamiliar with the venue can affect credibility—especially in smaller communities.

A related planning point: superior court judges typically rotate within a division. It’s worth checking who is on rotation in your county when you’re deciding when to schedule something important, and then asking lawyers who practice there what they’ve learned about the judges who come through.

Best practice:

• Confirm the division and rotation reality before you set high‑stakes deadlines.
• Use available court scheduling resources, then validate what you learn with local counsel.
• Treat venue familiarity as part of trial readiness, not an optional extra.

2) Treat Local Rules Like “Rules of Civil Procedure—Plus”

Local rules can function like an additional layer of procedure for a district. They apply only within that district, and enforcement can vary from place to place—sometimes even from judge to judge.

Also, be careful about scope. Some local rules apply across a multi‑county district even if the formatting of a “rules book” makes that easy to miss.

Best practice:

• Locate the local rules, then verify whether they are county‑specific or district‑wide.
• Ask a lawyer who practices there which rules are routinely enforced in that venue.
• If you’re unsure, assume the local rule will be enforced and plan accordingly.

3) Scheduling Orders: In Many Places, They’re Not a Given

If you practice mainly in larger counties, you may expect every case to come with a scheduling order. In many counties, cases proceed without a formal scheduling order and counsel manage deadlines more informally.

Even where scheduling is structured, the terminology and forms can vary by venue. A habit that works in one county may not translate cleanly to another.

Best practice:

• Ask early whether the venue typically uses a scheduling order or relies on counsel coordination.
• Align your discovery plan and motion timing to the venue’s reality—not your home‑county assumptions.
• When a form is required, use the county’s form (not your firm’s template) unless you confirm it’s acceptable.

4) Discovery and Depositions: County Culture Can Change What’s “Normal”

Discovery expectations can swing sharply across counties. Some venues specify a defined discovery period; many do not.

Deposition conduct and informal norms can also vary—for example, whether meeting with your client during a deposition break is viewed as improper.

Some venues have detailed expectations for proportionality, e‑discovery, privilege logs, and limits on written discovery.

Best practice:

• Before you schedule depositions, check for discovery periods, limits, and any venue‑specific conduct expectations.
• If a county has proportionality or e‑discovery guidance, treat it as your baseline from day one.
• Don’t count on continuances for discovery disputes—some venues rarely grant them.

5) Motions Practice: Mechanics and Timing Can Be Different Everywhere

The mechanics of getting a motion heard are not uniform. Many counties rely on the trial court administrator or coordinator for scheduling, but individual venues can add their own procedures, calendars, lead times, and restrictions (including limits tied to proximity to trial).

Local scheduling requirements can matter beyond convenience. In some circumstances, compliance can affect whether a motion is heard at all.

Best practice:

• Confirm the scheduling method for that county (form, portal, coordinator process) before you notice a motion.
• Build in lead time that matches local practice, not your usual cadence.
• Check for restrictions tied to trial dates, especially for dispositive motions.

6) Defaults and Minor Settlements: Local Rules Can Be Outcome‑Determinative

Some venues impose local procedures for entry of default, including notice requirements. Missing a local step can create an opening for the other side to seek relief.

Minor settlement approvals are particularly venue‑sensitive. Across the state, you will see many different approaches—including requirements for open court hearings, court reporters, and specific statements on the record.

Best practice:

• Before pursuing default, confirm any local notice or timing requirements.
• For minor settlements, build a venue‑specific checklist (documents, hearing format, required record statements).
• Anticipate judge‑specific preferences and adjust your plan early—not on the hearing date.

7) Pretrial Procedure: Even “Statewide” Rules Don’t Always Feel Statewide

Pretrial expectations can be dramatically different across regions. Some venues operate with minimal pretrial paperwork; others expect detailed pretrial disclosures, exhibit lists, and witness lists.

In some counties, failure to comply with local pretrial requirements can have serious consequences.

Best practice:

• Confirm whether the venue expects a pretrial order, exhibit list, witness list, and copies for jurors.
• Map those requirements into your trial prep calendar at the start of the case.
• If local rules set consequences, treat deadlines as firm—even if you’ve seen them relaxed elsewhere.

8) Local Peculiarities: Credibility Is Built (or Lost) in Small Moments

Venue familiarity is not only procedural. Mispronouncing place names, misunderstanding local reference points, or speaking in ways that feel disconnected from the community can undercut credibility.

Avoid oversimplifying jury pools with “rural vs. urban” labels. Communities are complex, and local attitudes can shape how jurors evaluate liability, damages, and witness credibility.

Be careful with casual comments about common local services or providers; what feels like a throwaway remark can land poorly in a community where that service is trusted and widely used.

Best practice:

• Learn how locals pronounce place names and talk about their community—then match that tone respectfully.
• Do a quick, focused review of community demographics and local context before trial.
• Keep your courtroom language grounded and respectful; avoid broad stereotypes about venues or juries.

9) Your Fastest Local Advantage: People Who Already Know the Venue

One consistent theme: call someone who has been there. Experienced lawyers will often share practical venue intelligence if you ask.

Trial court administrators and coordinators are also key. They sit at the intersection of counsel, the judge, and the smooth functioning of the calendar—professionalism and clarity with them pays dividends.

Finally, avoid emphasizing that you’re from out of town. Let your preparation do the talking.

Best practice:

• Develop a habit of getting local input early—before you file, notice, or commit to dates.
• Treat the trial court administrator/coordinator with professionalism, clarity, and respect.
• In court, project readiness and competence; avoid framing yourself as a newcomer.

The takeaway is not to be intimidated by local practice—it’s that local practice is learnable. A little upfront homework can prevent avoidable missteps and help you focus on what matters most: building credibility with the court and presenting your case clearly and persuasively.

****

This article is adapted from the transcript of the July 2023 Practice Pointers Series presented by David Hood of Patrick Harper & Dixon, LLP.

James G. Welsh, Jr., Davis & Hamrick, LLP

Billing can feel like an administrative chore, but it’s a core professional skill—and it directly affects your client relationships, your reputation inside your firm, and whether your work turns into revenue. The good news: strong billing isn’t complicated. It’s mostly about consistency, clarity, and good habits.

Make Daily, Accurate Billing Your Default

Law is a business. Your time has value, and time billed is what leads to time paid. One practical reality to keep in mind: it often takes about 10 hours of work to produce 8 billable hours—so if you’re not tracking time consistently, you can lose billable time without noticing.

Set Yourself Up To Succeed

• Keep an accessible clock or timer.
• Know your task codes.
• Treat timekeeping like a skill you can improve.
• Bill consistently and on schedule.
• Send reminders when needed.
• Learn when each client expects bills, and how they pay (cash, check, direct deposit, ACH, credit card, etc.).

Good billing habits help bills get paid faster—which makes everyone happier.

Best Practices That Prevent Lost Time

Write down your time immediately. The closer you capture time to the work, the more accurate it will be. Small increments matter (0.1s matter), and “small ticket” items add up over a week and a month.

A practical method:

• Start the description before or as the work begins.
• Then note the time at the conclusion—or complete the full entry at the end.
• The key is to record it before you forget or get distracted.

Billing descriptions are where you show value

Descriptions aren’t filler. They’re vital—especially when there’s third-party billing review. Your entries should communicate value in a way that is clear and substantive. Describe what you did, and follow applicable guidelines.

Know What You Can Bill For—And Explain What Needs Explaining

Billing isn’t limited to just lawyer tasks. Depending on the matter and the client, you may be able to bill for items like copies or postage, and for appropriate paralegal tasks.

Some time entries can look high at first glance. When that happens, be proactive:

• Offer explanations for time that may look excessive.
• Show non-billable items when appropriate.
• If something took longer than expected but you’re only charging less time, say so.
• Above all, be fair.

Situational billing habits that make entries stronger

A Few Habits Will Save You Headaches Later

Get permission in writing when needed. If you need approval for an activity, get it in writing, confirm it in writing, and note that approval in your time entry.

Note volume and context. If the task involves volume, say so:

• How long a brief is.
• How many pages you reviewed. If you don’t know the exact page count, describe the volume (for example, a large folder or banker’s box).
• Note whether the review was brief or more detailed.
• Note time away from the office when relevant.
• Track time on weekends or vacations if you are working.

Use the kind of description your client prefers. Some clients want maximum specificity; others want short, self-explanatory entries with general detail. Learn the preference and stay consistent.

Know what your firm wants. Billing expectations vary by firm, and you should understand your internal standards.

Avoid block billing. Break down work into separate entries or clearly separated segments so the reader can understand what was done and why it took the time it did.

When multiple lawyers are involved, communicate. If two or more lawyers are billing on the same matter, coordinate—especially within the same firm. If lawyers in different firms are billing the same client, acknowledge time involved with one another to support consistency and credibility.

Handle Third-Party Reviews and Appeals Like Part of the Job

If your bills are reviewed by a third party, don’t ignore the feedback—review it and understand why time was reduced. Know the appeal process, who to contact, and which appeals are worth pursuing.

Also:

• Communicate with adjusters, managers, and clients when issues arise.
• Use appropriate and fair budgets: err on the high side, but not too high.
• Monitor budgets and warn the client if the budget needs to be edited/amended—and explain why.
• Audit yourself before a third-party auditor does.

For unpaid bills, watch aging (30/45/60/90 days) and don’t wait too long to address the problem.

Be Honest and Careful—Every Time

Billing integrity matters. Be honest, and be mindful of confidentiality and privilege in your descriptions. Consider who is seeing the bill now—and who may see it later.

You also have to follow client guidelines, including guideline time restraints. If you exceed a guideline, explain it.

Avoid double billing (billing two clients for work done during the same block of time). If you’re working across matters in the same time period, pro-rate appropriately.

Travel is another common trouble spot. Know what your client treats as non-billable versus billable travel. Use non-billable travel time productively (return calls, dictation, intra-office matters), and remember that clients can check mileage and time.

Remember: Firms and Clients Really Are Different

Billing structures vary widely: hourly, flat fees, sliding scale, unbundled services, retainers. Your firm may use specific software or timesheets, and may rely on productivity or reporting tools. Use those tools to monitor what work you’re doing andd how long it takes—and check whether entries are accurate and what partners are cutting, and why.

Some firms also want non-billable time tracked (business development, pro bono, professional development, community service). Do what your employer expects.

Finally, don’t be afraid to talk to clients about bills and rates. Ask how your billing compares, whether there are concerns, and advocate for yourself professionally.

Health Care Providers Should Dust Off Preserved COVID Immunity Defenses After the North Carolina Supreme Court Vacated Unfavorable Covid Immunity Decision

Christy C. Dunn, Young Moore and Henderson, P.A.

In October 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision in Land v. Whitley, 292 N.C. App. 244 (2024) that affirmed the trial court’s denial of immunity from civil liability to health care providers during COVID-19 under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act. Land v. Whitley, 920 S.E.2d 823 (N.C. 2025). Now that the only controlling appellate decision construing the Act (which was unfavorable to defendants) is gone, health care providers that have preserved this immunity defense but have not yet asserted it in active litigation should reconsider whether and when to do so.

Ms. Land received medical care from the defendants between June and August 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2022, she and her husband filed a complaint against her doctor, the physicians’ group, and the hospital, alleging negligence and gross negligence arising from complications following a hysterectomy.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on grounds that they were entitled to immunity under Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which was passed unanimously by the North Carolina General Assembly in May 2020. Specifically, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6) for the plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The trial court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the defendants appealed. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the order was an interlocutory order that was not immediately appealable. The Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss the appeal, heard oral arguments on the issues presented, and later issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants failed to establish a sufficient causal link between the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and Ms. Land’s surgery and follow-up care, and therefore the defendants were not entitled to the statutory immunity. The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded gross negligence by alleging failures by the defendants during the surgery and follow-up care.

The defendants and their amici petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision, which the Supreme Court granted. In the amicus briefs that I authored on behalf of North Carolina’s long-term care facilities supporting the petition for discretionary review and supporting the defendants on the merits, we argued that the Court of Appeals erred because (1) the General Assembly intended to grant broad immunity to health care providers who delivered health care during the public health emergency, not to restrict the immunity to liability only for negligence or injuries caused by Covid; and (2) allowing plaintiffs to escape proper pleading standards for gross negligence nullifies the immunity granted by the Act and thwarts other important public policy.

Approximately one year after hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on October 17, 2025 vacating the Court of Appeals decision on grounds that the Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction because the defendants did not have a right to immediately appeal the trial-court order denying their motions to dismiss. The Court explained that because the order was interlocutory (not a final judgment), it was not immediately appealable unless the defendants could establish that the denial of their motions to dismiss affected a substantial right absent appellate review before a final judgment, or that the order was an adverse ruling on personal jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that the defendants failed to make either of these showings, and thus the Court of Appeals erred in exercising appellate review. The Court explained its reasoning that because the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act granted immunity from liability, and not immunity from suit, “any perceived injury from the denial of their motions could be remedied later in the trial proceeding or on appeal, precluding the need for interlocutory review.” The Court also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that the trial court’s order was an adverse ruling on personal jurisdiction, explaining that the right to immediate appeal of an adverse ruling on personal jurisdiction is limited to rulings on “minimum contacts” questions, not statutory immunity.

The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.

Now that there is no controlling appellate decision construing the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act unfavorably toward health care providers, defendant health care providers that have preserved this defense in active litigation should consider whether to assert it, especially in cases where the plaintiff has no colorable claim of gross negligence and the assigned medical malpractice judge might be inclined to grant the immunity. Defense counsel should also evaluate the likelihood that your client’s set of facts will stand up on appeal if the trial court grants the immunity and whether those facts might risk making bad law.

by Major General (Retired) Boe Young
Military Expert Witness Group

Personal injury claims involving military service members frequently include allegations that an accident ended a promising career. When plaintiffs assert that an injury prevented continued service, that often translates into projected losses that include decades of future military pay, missed promotions, and substantial pension benefits. Because military compensation structures are unique — and North Carolina is home to large military communities spanning active-duty, Guard, and Reserve populations — defense attorneys and insurers must carefully assess these claims. Properly evaluating military career trajectories, advancement expectations, and benefit systems is essential to building a realistic and defensible economic model.

Evaluating Service Potential: A Two-Part Analysis

When assessing whether a service member truly lost a military career, we focus on two core questions:

1. Was the individual truly on track for continued service?

Military advancement is performance-based, not automatic. A service member’s personnel file is central to understanding their competitiveness. Promotion boards review performance reports, training history, leadership potential, and completion of required professional military and civilian education. Comparing a plaintiff’s record against these objective benchmarks — including historical board outcomes — helps determine whether their career momentum supported their damages claim.

2. Did the service have a demand for someone of their skills and rank?

Even strong performers may face limited opportunities if the service is downsizing or reshaping its force structure. We examine published force-management data, promotional opportunity metrics, and trends in specialty demand. Understanding how the military allocates human capital across career fields is critical to determining whether a long-term career was realistically available to the plaintiff and for how long.

Once these issues are understood, we separate fact from assumption. For example, plaintiffs often assume an uninterrupted career path extending to 20 years of service. In reality, many military members serve under short-term contracts and may not even be eligible to reenlist without meeting performance criteria. These details significantly affect projected tenure and retirement eligibility.

With the factual foundation clarified, we model potential career outcomes and compensation streams using DoD pay tables, statutory formulas, and established regulations. These projections typically account for base pay, allowances (BAH and BAS), special or incentive pay, health-care value, and, if applicable, retirement benefits.

The Weight of Retirement in Damages Models

In many military-related injury cases, the largest component of alleged economic loss involves retirement benefits — particularly the value of an immediate, lifetime active-duty pension. Because military pensions are indexed for inflation and continue for life, the total value can reach seven figures.

A Brief Overview of Military Retirement Systems

Active-Duty Retirement (20-Year Retirement)

Members who complete 20 years of service qualify for an immediate pension. Under the Blended Retirement System (BRS) which was implemented in 2018, members receive a smaller defined benefit than under the legacy system but gain matching contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which works similar to a 401K plan.

Reserve/Guard Retirement

Reserve Retirement is earned through accumulated “points” for drills, active service, training, and other duties. Retired pay usually starts at age 60, although many reserve members can qualify for earlier receipt.

Disability Retirement

Those medically retired with a DoD disability rating of at least 30% receive an immediate monthly retirement benefit and lifetime access to military health care. Disability retirement is separate and distinct from VA disability benefits.

Understanding the nuances of these systems — and whether the plaintiff likely would have qualified for any of them — is crucial. Understanding how they mesh with VA benefits, is crucial to comprehend.

Examples Illustrating the Importance of Record-Based Review

The Navy Commander and the Unlikely Promotion to Captain (O-6)

One case involved a Navy Commander who asserted she would have been promoted to Captain, significantly increasing her projected pension value. However, her file showed three non-selections — a critical issue in the Navy’s strict up-or-out system. Historical board data confirmed that further promotion was improbable. Once these facts were presented, the opposing expert withdrew their opinion entirely.

The Army Major Missing a Key Educational Requirement

Another plaintiff, an Army Major, claimed he was on track for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. Although promotion rates at that level can be favorable, a deeper review revealed he had never attended the mandatory professional military education required for promotion. Without that credential, his upward trajectory was far from guaranteed. Incorporating this fact substantially reduced the claimed damages.

A Marine NCO With a Strong, Well-Documented Career

In contrast, a Marine Corps Non-Commissioned Officer medically retired after a vehicle accident had an exemplary record — meritorious promotions, superior performance, and combat deployments. Given her career timing and trajectory, she appeared likely to advance. Nevertheless, we modeled multiple scenarios to reflect varying probabilities of promotion, offering the court a balanced, transparent picture.

These examples illustrate a consistent theme: military personnel files and objective promotion data often tell a more reliable story than assumptions made in the initial damages claim.

Distinguishing the Major Benefit Systems

Confusion often arises between three separate programs: VA disability compensation, military disability retirement, and disability severance pay. Each carries different legal implications and must be treated correctly in damages analysis.

VA Disability Compensation

A tax-free benefit is paid monthly by the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected conditions. It does not represent lost earnings and is separate from military retirement.

Military Disability Retirement

A DoD-administered retirement system for members who cannot continue service due to qualifying disabilities. It functions like a pension and includes long-term health care benefits.

Disability Severance Pay

A one-time lump sum given to members separated for medical reasons with a DoD disability rating below 30%. It is not a retirement benefit and may or may not be considered a setoff depending on jurisdiction.

Misunderstanding the interactions among these systems can lead to inaccurate valuations — sometimes significantly inflating damages.

Beyond Pay: Additional Components of Military Compensation

Military earnings include more than salary. When assessing lost earnings, ensure the following are accounted for:

• Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) – monthly housing allowance that varies based on location and rank.
• Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) – monthly allowance for food, which varies based on enlisted/officer and rank.
• Special and incentive pay (e.g., aviation pay, language incentives, reenlistment bonuses) – these can be a major factor in total remuneration and are frequently overlooked.
• Health-care benefits for members and families. Both reserve and active retirements include healthcare benefits and the value of these can be as high as the defined pension benefit.
• Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits — including the value of tuition, stipends, and often transferability to dependents. While the GI Bill is not direct income, losing eligibility due to early separation can represent a meaningful loss of future value.

Conclusion

Service members often present compelling narratives and sympathetic plaintiffs, when they allege an injury derailed their military career. But for defense attorneys— especially in a military-heavy state such as North Carolina — these cases demand more than a surface-level evaluation. Every promotion claim, benefit calculation, and assumption about continued service should be tested against objective data: the personnel file, promotion board statistics, DoD regulations, and force-structure realities. When this analysis is performed early and rigorously, the resulting damages assessments are more precise, more credible, and ultimately more fair for all parties involved.

In traumatic injury litigation, defense attorneys face the critical task of challenging inflated damages claims and countering them with credible, defensible evidence. When plaintiffs present demands involving future medical care, work restrictions, and post-injury income loss, you need experienced experts who can expose exaggerated financial projections, questionable medical recommendations, and unsupported assumptions about long-term employability. Left unchecked, these claims can shape a damages narrative that distorts settlement leverage and influences trial outcomes.

Equipping your defense with an integrated team of medical experts, certified life care planners, vocational experts, and economists helps ensure every claim is scrutinized, every assumption is tested, and your client’s bottom line is protected.

Four Experts, One Cohesive Defense Strategy

A coordinated team of medical, life care planning, vocational, and economic experts provides defense counsel with the clarity and consistency needed to dismantle inflated damages claims. Each discipline plays a distinct role, but together they deliver a unified strategy that withstands scrutiny at every stage of litigation.

Medical Expert Witness

Medical professionals form the foundation for rebutting plaintiff personal injury claims. Their evaluations focus on whether proposed treatments and ongoing care recommendations are medically necessary, clinically supported, and consistent with accepted standards of practice. By highlighting gaps, speculative interventions, or unsupported medical opinions, medical experts help defense teams challenge the credibility of inflated care projections.

Certified Life Care Planner

Life care plans can drive some of the largest figures in a plaintiff’s damages claim. A comprehensive review by a certified life care planner can reveal excessive frequency of treatments and rehabilitation services, inflated costs, or recommendations unsupported by medical recommendations. Through life care plan rebuttal reports and expert testimony, they present reliable, clinically grounded projections of future medical needs and associated costs.

Vocational Expert

Plaintiffs may present vocational assessments that overstate work restrictions or underestimate employment opportunities. Vocational experts, or Certified Rehabilitation Counselors, critically analyze pre- and post-injury earning capacity, transferable skills, and labor market conditions to test the validity of these claims. Their findings can demonstrate that employability is higher and wage loss lower than presented in the plaintiff’s report.

Economist

Economists take the findings from life care planners and vocational experts and translate them into financial terms. They calculate the present value of future medical costs, lost wages, and earning capacity, ensuring that every projection is backed by reliable methodology and accurate economic data. Their role provides the defense with a credible, bottom-line assessment of true damages exposure.

A Collaborative Impact

This integrated team of experts ensures clear case insights and effective collaboration. Clients are not required to engage every discipline, but when retained early in the litigation lifecycle, these experts can begin evaluating records and data immediately. This gives defense counsel a strategic edge in identifying gaps, refining rebuttals, and preparing for mediation or trial.

Benefits of Early Engagement

Traumatic injury defense gains a significant advantage when expert analysis begins before discovery or trial. Engaging a coordinated team of experts early in the litigation process allows every claim to be examined with precision, every assumption to be tested, and every rebuttal to be built on clear, consistent evidence.

Strengthen Your Case from the Start

Retaining all four expert types during early case development allows for immediate review of medical records, identification of missing documentation, and strategic planning. Early engagement also prevents opposing counsel from securing these key experts first, locking in your advantage.

Streamlined Communication and Coordination

When all experts are retained through the same consulting firm, communication becomes more efficient and consistent. Case managers coordinate across disciplines to ensure collaboration and timely deliverables.

Cost and Time Efficiency

Retaining experts with dual credentials, such as a medical doctor who is also a certified life care planner, or a certified life care planner who doubles as a vocational expert, can reduce the need for multiple engagements, saving both time and resources.

Securing Integrated Expert Witness Support

Litigation outcomes hinge on the credibility, preparedness, and coordination of your experts. Selecting professionals who understand the jurisdiction, the medicine, and the economics at issue can meaningfully influence how damages are framed and evaluated.

IMS Legal Strategies maintains a nationwide expert network with coverage across all 50 states, allowing defense teams to identify experts who meet local court standards and venue-specific expectations. Their medical expert witness panel has supported tens of thousands of matters, giving counsel access to clinicians who are experienced in both record review and testimony.

In 2024, IMS launched a national Life Care Planning & Rebuttals service line that brings life care planners and vocational experts together within one coordinated team. This structure supports:

• Care projections grounded in clinical evidence and medical recommendations
• Vocational assessments that evaluate employability, transferable skills, and earning capacity
• Expert testimony that is prepared to withstand challenges under Daubert, Robinson, and similar standards

IMS is also expanding its analytics capabilities to better address complex damages claims, particularly those involving layered medical, vocational, and economic issues.

As Kacy Turner, MS, CRC, CVE, CLCP, Lead Life Care Planner and Vocational Expert at IMS, explains, an integrated approach allows each discipline to build on the others’ work:

“Our life care planning and vocational team reviews medical records so I can understand, as the testifying expert, what the injuries are and what type of rehabilitation the individual has undergone. I then rely on the medical experts to provide restrictions and limitations. When it comes time to work with the economist, I share my findings with them, and the economist calculates the damages. For example, if the individual is going to have a yearly wage loss due to injury, the economist will calculate the work-life expectancy.”

Applying Integrated Expertise to Defense Strategy

Defense strategy in serious injury cases benefits from more than isolated expert opinions. A coordinated expert team can evaluate, challenge, and present evidence across each dimension of a plaintiff’s damages claim, including:

• Independent medical assessment and recommendations
• Life care plan evaluations and rebuttal reports
• Defensible vocational assessments and rebuttals
• Accurate cost estimates and cost estimate reviews
• Economic damage quantification and present value analysis
• Expert witness testimony that is aligned across disciplines

From early case development through trial, an integrated expert team can provide the clarity, consistency, and collaboration needed to scrutinize inflated injury claims and protect the client’s interests.

About the Contributor
This article was contributed by IMS Legal Strategies.

For more information about integrated medical, life care planning, vocational, and economic expert services, contact:

Susan deHoll, Senior Account Executive 
North Carolina | South Carolina | Georgia

877.919.6846 • 803.748.6767 • sdeholl@imslegal.com