While depositions are part of the job, many are avoidable. Often, it’s not just what the QME concluded—but how the report was written that leads to a deposition.
Here are the most common issues that trigger a deposition—and what you can do to reduce the risk:
⚠️ 1. Vague or Unsupported Causation Opinions
The Issue:
You simply state that the injury is work-related (or not) without explaining why.
What Triggers the Depo:
Attorneys want to know what facts, history, and medical evidence your causation opinion is based on. If it’s not spelled out, they’ll bring you in to explain it under oath.
How to Avoid It:
Cite objective findings, detailed clinical reasoning, and provide a clear logic trail that supports your finding. Providing the why of how you reached your findings is just as important as the finding itself. Make sure you indicate your medical-legal findings are stated within reasonable medical probability to meet the threshold of substantial medical evidence.
🧩 2. Incomplete or Missing Apportionment
The Issue:
You assign 100% industrial apportionment without discussing non-industrial factors—or vice versa.
What Triggers the Depo:
California law under LC §4663 and §4664 requires that you explain the how and why of your findings, including a discussion of potential factors that you ruled out as apportionable causes of the disability. Skipping this step makes your report legally deficient.
How to Avoid It:
Even if there are not any non-industrial factors to consider, simply say so. If there are non-industrial factors for consideration, then detail your rationale for ruling those non-industrial factors out as being at cause to some percentage for the disability. Provide the rationale for the factors you have found causative and apportionable at the percentages you have determined to be most accurate.
🧠 3. Lack of Rationale Behind Impairment Ratings
The Issue:
You state a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) without explaining how you arrived at that percentage.
What Triggers the Depo:
Attorneys will challenge you if your impairment rating feels arbitrary, especially if it doesn’t match the described symptoms or examination findings.
How to Avoid It:
Clearly link your rating to the applicable AMA Guides chapters and show how each rating decision was arrived at based on documented criteria and clinical evidence. If you are using a GAF make sure to clearly document how that GAF applies and not a lower or higher one.
🔁 4. Internal Inconsistencies Within the Report
The Issue:
In one section, you state the applicant has full range of motion and no observable limitations, yet later you assign a 7% Whole Person Impairment based on limited range of motion. This inconsistency undermines the report’s credibility and invites scrutiny.
Or
You say the patient has moderate limitations but assign a GAF in the mild range of impairment.
Or
You provide timelines, statements, or diagnoses that conflict with your findings.
What Triggers the Depo:
Inconsistencies make it easy for attorneys to argue that your opinions are unreliable. Attorneys will seize on these contradictions to question your methodology, or argue your conclusions. Depositions can be used to pressure the QME into clarifying—or revising—findings.
How to Avoid It:
Carefully review your report for consistency between history, diagnoses, impairment ratings, findings, and conclusions. Read your report as if you’re the attorney.
💬 5. Ambiguous Language or Tone
The Issue:
Phrases like “He probably meets criteria,” “She may have a diagnosis,” “He seemed to be dishonest,” or “She didn’t act like someone who’s really in pain” can weaken your report by sounding subjective or implying bias—especially when not supported by objective data, test results, or specific behavioral observations.
What Triggers the Depo:
Attorneys may challenge your tone or question your impartiality if your wording sounds speculative, vague or biased.
How to Avoid It:
Keep your language clinical, professional, and objective. Stick to clear, evidence-based conclusions to strengthen the credibility of your findings. Speak with conviction, and let the evidence speak, always linking your conclusions to objective data.
⚖️ Bottom Line: Diligence Prevents Depositions
Of course, some depositions are unavoidable, especially when an attorney dislikes or disagrees with your conclusions. But the weaknesses or inconsistencies in your report are often what give attorneys the leverage to challenge your opinion.
When your report and findings are:
- Clear
- Well-reasoned
- Thoroughly documented
- Based on objective data
You make it difficult for an attorney to put pressure on your findings—and easier for the judge to rely on your report as substantial medical evidence.
At Equity Evaluations, we help QMEs refine their reports to hold up under scrutiny.
If you want to sharpen your skills, write airtight reports, reduce depositions, and defend your findings with confidence—let’s talk.
