Preparing an independent medical examination: clarify the assignment first

Establish why the existing medical material is insufficient

De Letselschade Raad identifies examination as an option for persistent disagreement between medical advisers or where specialist knowledge is needed. Ask what remains unclear: diagnosis, consequences, limitations, prognosis or another defined medical issue. A request for “another doctor” without a question may add time and burden without progressing the claim. Sometimes a targeted addition or explanation can already clarify the problem.

The medical assessment guide explains the roles. This guide starts when independent examination is considered and addresses advance arrangements. You need not choose a diagnosis yourself. Ask what decision the answer will enable and what falls outside the assignment. Assessing permanent limitations does not automatically decide legal liability or all future income loss.

Identify the commissioning party, expert and questions

Ask who commissions the examination: one party, the parties jointly or a court. Where additional assessment is necessary, De Letselschade Raad prefers a joint approach. This does not make every unilateral report worthless or every joint report automatically irrevocably binding. Have the agreements and legal significance explained before consenting. Keep the final assignment, not merely the first proposed letter.

Discuss expertise in the specific field, any previous involvement and how the parties respond to the selection. Ask medically answerable questions and avoid an assignment that assumes the desired legal outcome. An expert explains findings within their field; a lawyer translates them into the claim afterwards. The table separates arrangements often mixed together in one brief invitation.

Select records according to relevance and source

Request a list of the medical information the expert receives, with dates and origins. Discuss missing recent information and relevant history. Do not create an inaccurate picture by forwarding only favourable records, but do not share the entire medical history with everyone without explanation either. The medical-records guide helps define purpose, period and recipient. Targeted consent belongs with understandable information sharing.

Check that factual material such as accident date and work description matches the file. Mark disputed facts as disputed rather than silently including them as established in the assignment. Ask how additions should be supplied and how both parties know the same relevant basis. Do not send medical files through general website forms or local organising tools; these are not medical transfer channels.

Discuss examination, accessibility and support in advance

Ask what the examination includes, its approximate duration and practical preparation required. Raise needs for breaks, accessibility or a professional interpreter early. Discuss whether someone can accompany you and what role they may have. Do not assume a companion can attend every test or conversation; ask about the actual arrangement beforehand.

An expert examination is not treatment and does not replace discussion with your own healthcare provider. If the examination or memories trigger symptoms, discuss appropriate care through that route. Do not change medication yourself to perform better or worse during assessment. If uncertain, ask what is medically responsible and report relevant circumstances honestly. This guide gives no medical instructions for an examination or test.

Prepare facts and everyday examples without rehearsing answers

Make a brief timeline of the incident, symptoms, treatment and changes in functioning. Use examples of ordinary duties and mention good and bad days. What can you do independently, with adjustments or only with help? A concrete account is more useful than memorising legal conclusions. If a date is uncertain, say so and check the document instead of providing false precision.

Answer truthfully, including about earlier symptoms or recovery. An old complaint does not automatically exclude new consequences. Have the medical and legal significance assessed by the appropriate professionals. Do not seek test answers to steer the outcome or try to demonstrate maximum limitations. A balanced assessment seeks a verifiable account, not the most favourable presentation for one party.

Record access, correction and possible blocking arrangements

Before the examination, ask how you receive the findings and the specific response arrangements. KNMG distinguishes access, correction of objective facts and blocking. Replacing an opinion or conclusion because you disagree is not a factual correction. Ask who receives your response, whether your representative can assist and how any addition remains identifiable in the report.

The framework determines whether a blocking right applies; exceptions exist for certain assessments, including ongoing employment or private insurance and specific social legislation. A liability claim against another person does not necessarily use the same framework as your own existing insurance. Have applicability and possible evidential consequences explained. Do not describe a stated response period as a universal statutory deadline; request adjustments before it expires if needed.

Discuss costs, planning and legal consequences separately

Request a cost agreement beforehand and ask what happens with additional questions, cancellation or delay. The fact that assessment costs may form part of damages does not guarantee full payment of every invoice without evaluation. Clarify the approval or funding agreed and what your own instruction includes. Wanting progress is no reason to read unclear obligations only after the appointment.

Keep the invitation, assignment, records list and relevant correspondence. Agree who monitors legal deadlines alongside the medical process. A postponed appointment or incomplete report does not automatically extend them. If necessity or arrangements are disputed, the dispute guide helps identify the legal issue. Do not independently commission a new examination without discussing possible consequences and costs.

Create a verifiable follow-up after the appointment

Record factually which subjects were covered and which further records were requested. Do not retrospectively rewrite the conversation as though every answer was recorded verbatim. Report a significant misunderstanding through the agreed route and keep the original with your response. The report guide helps with later evaluation; an unfavourable conclusion does not automatically invalidate the assignment.

Use the meeting preparation tool and evidence tool only to organise questions and document names. For agreements about significance, blocking or further proceedings, you can seek legal help. Ask who bears each task and cost. The aim is targeted assessment with understandable arrangements and identified uncertainties, not a promise that every examination increases compensation.

• Identify the unresolved point and why information or discussion is insufficient.
• Keep the final assignment with expert, questions and records list.
• Arrange targeted information sharing and practical support.
• Have access, correction, possible blocking and response arrangements explained.
• Confirm costs, deadline responsibility and the route for later questions.