Personal-injury claims sometimes present a substantial gap between the plaintiff’s reported limitations and the available objective evidence. Effective defense begins by identifying inconsistencies, preserving functional evidence, and using qualified experts to determine whether the reported symptoms are reliable.
Scott A. Brody and the attorneys at Brody Law Group, PLLC compare the plaintiff’s deposition testimony with medical records, employment history, disability applications, social-media activity, surveillance, prior claims, and statements made to different providers. Conflicting descriptions of pain, mobility, cognitive ability, daily activities, or accident mechanics may reveal areas requiring additional investigation.
Independent medical examinations can test the claimed condition objectively. Depending on the injuries alleged, the defense may retain an orthopedist, neurologist, radiologist, or other specialist. Examination findings should be compared with diagnostic imaging, treatment records, observed movement, reported symptoms, and recognized anatomical or neurological patterns.
Scott A. Brody recognizes the importance of leveraging available tools to investigate malingering.
Surveillance and functional evidence provide additional context. Driving, shopping, lifting, traveling, exercising, working, or completing household tasks may conflict with claimed restrictions. Complete footage should be reviewed carefully because an isolated activity does not necessarily establish sustained physical capacity.
Discovery should also explore alternative explanations. Preexisting conditions, prior accidents, employment disputes, psychiatric history, medication effects, substance use, financial stressors, and secondary-gain considerations may affect symptom presentation. Pharmacy records, prior medical files, tax records, employment documents, and collateral-witness testimony can help create a reliable baseline.
Brody Law Group, PLLC coordinates these tools to evaluate credibility without relying on unsupported accusations. Scott A. Brody remains focused on developing objective, admissible evidence that allows risk managers, claims adjusters, experts, and juries to distinguish documented impairment from exaggerated or unreliable reporting.