Mr Carrim's medical doctor

Mr Carrim's medical doctor did not perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME); therefore, the IME cannot be used to impugn his doctor's clinical observations.

“the simple point about that IME and why then it cannot be used as a basis to impugn Mr Carrim's medical doctor's clinical observations is Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME. An IME is an entirely separate form of medical examination that is performed in a forensic context where there needs to be, understandably, a degree of separation or independence between the medical examiner and the ultimate patient.”

The Commission's expert report does not dispute the clinical observation of Mr Carrim's treating doctor, but raises two collateral issues, including inappropriate suggestion that Mr Carrim's doctor should perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

“There is an expert report, ... put up by the Commission, which generously does not actually dispute that clinical observation. What it does is it speaks to two collateral issues. ... he talks about it being inappropriate for Mr Carrim's physician... to perform what is called an independent medical exam on Mr Carrim... that IME cannot be used as a basis to impugn Mr Carrim's medical doctor's clinical observations because Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME.”

Mr Carrim's treating doctor did not perform an IME; an IME is a forensic medical examination done independently from the patient, which is different from the treating doctor's clinical role.

“Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME. An IME is an entirely separate form of medical examination that is performed in a forensic context... a degree of separation or independence between the medical examiner and the ultimate patient.”