IME Psychologist Expert Witness — Independent and Agreed Medical Examinations
An IME psychologist expert witness examines someone who is not a patient, to answer a question somebody else framed. Dr. Mendonsa performs independent psychological examinations and serves as an Agreed Medical Evaluator, on retention from plaintiff, applicant, defense and the court alike.
An independent medical examination is a one-time psychological evaluation performed for a litigant, an insurer, an agency or a court rather than for treatment. In federal court it is ordered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 on a showing that the person’s mental condition is in controversy and that good cause exists. No treatment relationship is created.
QME, AME and IME are not the same thing
- QME is a California workers’ compensation role. The evaluator is DWC-certified and reaches the case through a three-name panel — Lab. Code § 4062.2 for a represented employee, § 4062.1 for an unrepresented one — with each side striking a name.
- AME is also a comp role, but the represented parties choose the evaluator themselves. Lab. Code § 4062.2(f) lets them agree at any time, and once an issue goes to an AME neither side may request a panel on it absent mutual written cancellation.
- IME is everything else: a defense examination in civil litigation, a carrier or plan examination on a disability claim, an agency evaluation, a court-ordered examination. No panel and no strike list; the terms come from a rule, an order or a contract.
In federal court the authority is Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1): the court may order a party whose mental or physical condition is in controversy to submit to examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner — wording that does not require a physician. The order issues only on motion for good cause (Rule 35(a)(2)(A)), and it must specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination and who will perform it (Rule 35(a)(2)(B)). Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964), holds those requirements are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings, nor by mere relevance to the case. California runs parallel: a mental examination requires leave of court (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310), granted only for good cause shown (§ 2032.320(a)), on an order specifying the diagnostic tests and procedures along with the scope (§ 2032.320(d)).
Rule 35(b) governs what comes back: on request the examined party receives the examiner’s report, setting out in detail the findings, including diagnoses, conclusions and the results of any tests. Requesting it, or deposing the examiner, waives privilege as to testimony about all examinations of the same condition, in that action and in any other involving the same controversy (Rule 35(b)(4)).
What an examination can settle, and what it cannot
An independent examination can state a diagnosis, describe functional limitations in terms a fact finder can apply, and address causation to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty. It cannot decide credibility as a matter of law, and it cannot supply the legal conclusion that a policy definition or statutory standard is met where that call belongs to someone else. It is also not treatment: the examinee is told at the outset who retained the evaluator, what the examination is for and where the report goes, and no treating relationship is created. The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2013) treat providing forensic and therapeutic services to the same person as a multiple relationship that may impair objectivity (Guideline 4.02.01). Child custody and parenting-plan evaluations are outside Dr. Mendonsa’s scope and are declined.
Rebuttal work is a separate assignment and often needs no examination at all. The questions are whether the instruments were administered and scored to the manual, whether validity and effort indices were reported at all, whether the records contradict the history the examinee gave, and whether the conclusions follow from the data. Effort and response style are measured rather than read off demeanor, and reported in whichever direction they run.
What an independent psychological examination consists of.
The battery is built for the referral question and reported whichever way it comes out.
Scope fixed before the examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(B) and Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(d) both require the order to specify manner, conditions, scope and the diagnostic tests and procedures. Where the examination is by agreement instead of order, the same terms belong in the retention letter. The examination stays inside them.
Rule 35(a)(2)(B)Notification, and no treatment relationship
The examinee is told who retained the evaluator, what the examination is for and where the report goes, and that nothing said will be held in the confidence a treating relationship would carry. The role is not mixed with a clinical one afterward.
APA SGFP 4.02.01Personality and symptom inventories
Broadband self-report measures with published validity scales, administered and scored to the manual, so the profile can be defended scale by scale rather than summarized in adjectives.
MMPI-3 · PAIValidity and effort testing
A contested examination is where response bias matters most. Stand-alone effort measures and a structured interview of reported symptoms go in as a matter of course, and a clean validity profile is as much a finding as a suspect one.
SIRS-2 · TOMMRecords, collateral and timeline
Treatment records, the claim or personnel file, prior testing and deposition testimony are read against the reported history, and discrepancies go in the body of the report. Rule 35(b)(2) requires findings, diagnoses, conclusions and test results in detail.
Rule 35(b)(2)Rebuttal and methodology critique
Where the assignment is to review an opposing examiner’s work: administration and scoring fidelity, whether validity indices were reported, whether alternative causes were weighed, and whether the conclusions follow from the data actually produced.
Rebuttal reportHow an IME or AME engagement runs.
Short, and mostly fixed by the order or the retention letter rather than by the evaluator.
Intake and conflict check
Parties, counsel and any prior involvement are cleared before the file is opened. Counsel retain Dr. Mendonsa nationwide; where the evaluation requires licensure in the forum state, his standing there is confirmed before the engagement is accepted.
Scope agreed in writing
The order, the stipulation or the retention letter states the referral question, the tests, the time allotted, and who may be present or recording. Rule 35(a)(2)(B) and Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320(d) require the court-ordered version to say this; the agreed version should say the same things.
Records before the examination
Reading first means the interview can test the history rather than collect it, and it supplies the collateral against which self-report is measured.
Examination and testing
Interview conducted personally, battery selected for the referral question, validity and effort measures in every case, scoring finished before any conclusion is drafted.
Report
Findings, diagnoses, conclusions and test results set out in detail, with the basis for each opinion stated so it can be checked rather than taken on faith. Where the answer is that the data do not support the claim, that is the answer.
Deposition, rebuttal and trial
Cross-examination on the file as written, and, where separately retained for it, a written critique of the opposing examiner’s methodology.
The background this opinion rests on.
Standing, training and the range of evaluation work the practice already covers.
What counsel ask before noticing an examination.
What is the difference between an IME and a QME?
A QME exists because the California Labor Code says so. The evaluator is certified by the DWC, the panel is requested under Lab. Code § 4062.2 or § 4062.1, and the forum is workers’ compensation. An IME is any independent examination outside that system: retained by a party, agreed between parties, or ordered by a court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 or a state analogue.
The difference is procedural more than clinical. The instruments and the standard of practice are the same; what changes is who set the scope, what the deadline is, and who receives the report.
Does a mental examination always require a court order?
In federal court, unless the parties agree to one. Rule 35 examinations issue on motion for good cause, and Rule 35(b)(6) applies the report provisions to an examination made by the parties’ agreement unless the agreement states otherwise. In California state court a mental examination always requires leave of court under Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310; the provision letting a defendant demand one examination of a personal injury plaintiff without leave (§ 2032.220(a)) reaches physical examinations only.
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964), remains the gloss on the showing. A pleading that puts emotional distress in the case does not by itself make the mental condition in controversy or establish good cause; the moving papers have to make that showing for the particular examination sought.
If we ask for the report, what do we give up?
Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b)(1) obliges the party who moved for the examination to deliver, on request, a copy of the examiner’s report together with like reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition. Rule 35(b)(2) sets the contents: in writing, findings in detail, including diagnoses, conclusions and the results of any tests.
Rule 35(b)(4) is the trade. By requesting and obtaining the report, or by deposing the examiner, the examined party waives any privilege concerning testimony about all examinations of the same condition, in that action and in any other action involving the same controversy. That is a decision worth making deliberately.
Can you rebut an opposing psychologist without examining our client?
Usually. A methodology critique is an opinion about the adequacy of another examiner’s work and the data behind it, not about the examinee, and it can be built from the report, the raw test data and the record.
Where the critique would require a conclusion about the examinee’s own condition — a competing diagnosis, a different impairment level — that takes an examination. The report will say plainly which opinions rest on a review and which rest on an examination.
Do you handle long-term disability and ERISA examinations?
Yes, for carriers, plans and claimants. On an ERISA-governed disability claim, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h) requires a full and fair review, and where the adverse determination turned on a medical judgment the appeal fiduciary must consult a health care professional with appropriate training and experience in the field of medicine involved — someone who was neither consulted on the determination under appeal nor a subordinate of that person.
That independence requirement is why an examination or record review at the appeal stage has to be genuinely at arm’s length. Where the assignment is a records review with no examination, the report says so and confines itself to what the records will carry.
Do you perform child custody evaluations?
No. Child custody and parenting-plan evaluations are outside Dr. Mendonsa’s scope, and those referrals are declined rather than accepted and passed to someone else.
Send the order, or the question you need answered.
Scope, timing and availability come back before records are requested.