Collect all data on the economic loss, in terms of lost property, wages, and money lost in medical payments.  Here is where the Certified Forensic Independent Medical Fraud examiner shines, as you must understand continuing impairment or disability, pain and suffering as well as psychological hardship.  When a medical case, if you are an investigator, retain a Certified Disability Forensic Medical Fraud Examiner.  He is certified to determine disability and will demonstrate that expertise in court will be able to determine the prognosis or future hardships, and forensically recreate what pain and suffering both present and future detail.  See how a Certified Independent Medical Forensic Fraud Examiner is the Ideal person to work these types of investigations or work in Operations to assist the field Agents.  Accurately reconstruct everything that happened that was in any way connected with the incident.  This begins will all events that led up to the case through all the events that resulted from it.  When an examiner is experienced, he will be able to reconstruct the events so well that the trial lawyer will receive an almost complete case in which to insert his courtroom dialogue.  Your work will stand the test of judicial review no matter if you work for the plaintiff or the defendant, for an insurance company or an attorney.  The evidence speaks for itself. 

DECISIVE EVIDENCE WHICH WILL STAND THE TEST OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

      In order to present the court decisive evidence which will stand the test of judicial review is to scientifically/forensically, reconstruct what actually occurred so the Judge and Jury can see for themselves what transpired.  Decisive evidence such as video tapes, photographs, blackboard drawings, artists’ sketches, scale models or displays of the physical surroundings of the crime scene can make or burn a case.  I personally built evidence for preparation for trial, went through depositions where opposing council would confide in me after seeing my work products that they were on the ropes.  Yet although attorney’s on opposing sides are compelled to get along, many attorneys hate popular Experts.  Thus on the case I am referencing, a clear cut malpractice case of someone well and then becoming a paraplegic with lose of bowl and bladder, the egocentric pontifical and self-aggrandizing attorney’s wished all the glory?  After I provided him with three months of hard investigative forensic evidence where he could not even pronounce the evidentiary names correctly, he went on and lost the case!   How?  After paying my $300 per hour charges, he went out and bought what they perceived was an expert.  Of course he lost by allowing the other attorney, now aware that I was not present, to make arguments off the evidence subject.  If their arguments were good enough to keep the subject off tract, and the jury understood the case as along the new lines of argument.  A smart attorney, realizing the new expert had little comprehension of the complex materials I supplied the attorney and during my deposition, being quick on his feet he simply avoided discussion of the decisive evidence.  Absent decisive evidence, he changed the subject and won.  I would name the case however; a few egocentric attorneys have nothing to due with the quality legal Scholars.   In fact due to working with the late Melvin Belli on several cases and his number one trial attorney on three late cases in his career, we all learned much from each other. In fact four Birthday parties of the late and distinguished Honorable Melvin Belli, are memories I will always cherish.

     Melvin taught me that the more imaginative the attorney or forensic medical fraud examiner can be the more vividly clear the kinds of objects and devices brought to the courtroom were received.  I will now reference Volume 2 of the Honorable Melvin Belli’s Modern Trials pp. 920-1019.

    It is a fact that both attorneys and investigators of the many types often overlook obvious “decisive” evidence.  Mr. Belli notes the case of Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries 1953, 117 Cal App (2d) 254, 255P (2d), 863 relative to a small 56 year old street cleaner.  Mr. Fernandez was performing his normal street cleaning duties, and he noticed a fish truck pull up to a stop sign and stop.  Simultaneously he noticed a box lying in the street several hundred feet behind the truck.  Though he did not see the box fall from the truck he assumed that it had, and ran over to the truck placing his hand on the door describing to the driver he had dropped a box from the back of his truck.  Suddenly the driver torqued out from the stop sign.  Mr. Fernandez was thrown under the wheels of the truck and sustained a severe fracture of his thigh right femur (thighbone). 

     The Jury in the first trial decided in favor of the truck driver because Mr. Fernandez was found to have contributed to the accident since he was trespassing on the fish truck driver’s property.  Brilliantly however, a new trial was granted on a technicality, and the second verdict went in favor of Fernandez.  The reason was that the landowner or possessor of property has the duty to protect known trespasses against reckless or wanton acts.  Thus the drive failed to exercise reasonable and proper care after discovering Mr. Fernandez perilous situation in a reckless and wanton act.  Mr. Fernandez recovered $50,000. 

      The major difference between the two trials was the use of decisive evidence.  The late and great Mr. Belli was asked to re-try the case and the first thing he said was “How big was the fish box?”  This superlative point of reasoning as poor Mr. Fernandez a qualified decent person would have not reason to approach the truck if there had not been a fish box in the street.  Mr. Belli subpoenaed an appropriate box from the Fish Company and brought it into court for the jury to examine.  He also introduced as evidence during the “medical testimony” a photograph of the large scar on Mr. Fernandez’ hip as a direct result of the operation necessary to reset his fractured femoral head.  These two pieces of decisive evidence were major factors in allowing the second jury to deliberate with a comprehensive understanding of the facts and decide in favor of Mr. Fernandez.

     Lets look at a case in the Federal District Court of Idaho for further examples where decisive evidence made the case stand the test of Judicial Review.  A disabled man was suing for benefits on three life insurance policies held with one company.  Non-forensic or fraud examiner certified neurosurgeons testified on behalf of the insurance company.  They claimed that if the plaintiff were really injured in the manner and to the extent of his claim, the sole and heel of his one shoe would be much more worn than the sole and heel of the other she.  However because both shoes were worn evenly, his allegations of disability were false.  The plaintiff himself, was his only witness when he took the stand.  He explained that he only wore his “Sunday Shoes” to court and to the doctor’s office for examination.  His attorney then introduced his “everyday shoes” as evidence and it was readily seen that one shoe still had the original sole and heel and was worn out slightly, while the other shoe had become so badly worn that it had been completely re-soled and re-heeled.  The jury deliberated only twenty minutes before deciding in favor of the plaintiff.

   In section 2, this examiner will present decisive evidentiary cases and further, proudly cite the New 1998 January 1 Federal Rules of evidencee.  Then continue into complex analysis guided by the honorable late Melvin Belli Esquire.

“Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country.”  Leviticus, xxiv, 22

 by Dr. Scott D Neff, DC, DABCO, CFE, DACFE FFABS