Anatomy of a defensible narrative report
A narrative report that survives cross-examination reads the same way whether it helps or hurts the retaining party. These are the structural elements we build into every report.
A narrative report that survives cross-examination reads the same way whether it helps or hurts the retaining party. These are the structural elements we build into every report.

Every document reviewed is listed with source and date range, and gaps are stated explicitly. An opinion built on an undisclosed subset of records is the easiest thing in the world to impeach.
The report distinguishes what the examinee reported, what the records show, and where the two diverge — without editorializing about credibility.
Measured range of motion, strength grades, reflexes, and provocative test results are recorded as data. Pain reports are recorded as reports. Blurring the two is the most common reason an opinion gets discounted.
Mechanism of injury, temporal relationship, biological plausibility, pre-existing conditions, and alternative explanations are each addressed. A bare conclusion of 'causally related' with no reasoning behind it carries no weight.
Whether maximum medical improvement has been reached, any impairment rating with the edition and tables used, functional restrictions, and the basis for future care recommendations.
A short diligence checklist saves months.
Look for a stated records inventory, a clean split between objective and subjective findings, and causation reasoning that is written out rather than asserted.
Our health practitioners assess post-accident injuries in Texas and Florida, with telehealth available.