Causation & Standard‑of‑Care Opinions

Clear opinions on mechanism, proximate cause, and adherence to medical standards.
Drawing on two decades of interventional pain practice and published research, I parse chronologies, imaging, and procedural notes to address “more‑likely‑than‑not” causation, foreseeability, and deviations from accepted care pathways.

Deliverables: Narrative opinion letter with cited references and differential analyses.

Objective, balanced analysis—highlighting both strengths and gaps.
I examine every element of the IME — history, exam findings, imaging, and referenced guidelines — to gauge where the report aligns with current evidence and where additional context is warranted. The result is a clear, measured critique that equips counsel to reinforce sound conclusions and thoughtfully challenge any oversights or unsupported assertions.

Deliverables: 4‑ to 7‑page written analysis

Comprehensive, citation‑rich counter‑reports that neutralize biased narratives.
When an opposing expert or insurer issues a lengthy narrative, I craft a rebuttal grounded in guidelines and recent meta‑analyses—highlighting logical fallacies, guideline misapplications, and overlooked functional data.

Deliverables: Annotated PDF, executive summary, bibliography.

Authoritative, jury‑friendly explanations of complex pain and neuromodulation topics.
I translate spinal cord stimulation, DRG therapy, CRPS, and complex pain management decisions into clear analogies, reinforcing key facts with demonstratives and peer‑reviewed evidence. My testimony style balances clinical depth with plain‑language clarity that I believe resonates with jurors and judges alike.

Formats: In‑person, remote video, or recorded segments.
Preparation: Mock cross, exhibit rehearsal, and slide deck review