The Problem With Doctors Refusing to Treat Accident Patients

“We don’t testify or get involved in personal injury cases.”

A doctor recently said this to a client of mine who started seeing the doctor for her injuries.

We often hear about doctors that the insurance industry attacks as being too involved in personal injury cases.

But the reality is there are a lot of doctors on the opposite end of the spectrum, doctors who are openly hostile to personal injury claims and the people bringing them. Some doctors flat-out refuse to see patients after a car accident or slip and fall. Others refuse to testify about the treatment they provided, even though they are clearly witnesses.

These doctors make life harder for their own patients in ways that are completely unnecessary. They’ll:

• Refuse to see patients if they were hurt in a car wreck or fall.
• Refuse to testify, even though they’re the treating doctor who knows exactly what’s wrong.
• Ignore letters and calls from attorneys trying to get their opinions.
• Sometimes, they’ll even hire a lawyer to fight a subpoena so they can avoid testifying at all costs.

This isn’t just a frustration for lawyers; it’s a disservice to patients.

People who were injured through no fault of their own deserve quality care and fair documentation of their injuries.

They shouldn’t have to worry that their doctor sees them as a hassle instead of a patient. They shouldn’t have to worry about finding a doctor who will give them the treatment they need and will just tell the truth about their medical care.

To me, this shouldn’t be controversial. If you’re a doctor and you treat injuries, why should it matter how those injuries happened?

But when I first wrote about this topic on LinkedIn, it struck a nerve—and some of the reactions were… revealing.

Here’s a sampling of what I saw:

• “Lawyers like you are the problem; you’re just in it for the money.”
• “If you want testimony, go hire a retained expert to do a forensic causation analysis.” (Even though that’s not how causation works in the vast majority of routine injury cases, the patient still needs the treatment in the first place, and let’s talk about the bias argument you’ll hear.)
• “Just pay a retained expert to review the medical records and testify about the treatment.” (As if there’s no issue with jurors wondering why the actual treating doctor isn’t testifying, and instead some out-of-state expert who never met the patient is flown in and the defense argues bias.)
• “Send them to a doctor who specializes in accident cases.” (Funny how this crowd is often the first to scream “bias” when someone sees one of those doctors.)
• “Doctors should get to pick and choose who they ‘do business’ with and shouldn’t have to do business with people who have a moral code they don’t agree with.” (Because getting in a car wreck or falling has to do with someone’s moral code?)

Here’s the thing: If you applaud doctors who refuse to see accident victims—if you think that’s right—then don’t turn around and complain when those same patients end up seeing doctors who do specialize in treating accident victims.

You can’t have it both ways.

If you don’t want a world where there’s a stark divide between “regular doctors” and “accident doctors,” the solution is simple: Stop encouraging regular doctors to turn their backs on these patients. Injured people deserve care, no matter how they got hurt. And they shouldn’t be stigmatized because of how they got injured.

This shouldn’t be controversial.

What do you think? Join the discussion with me on LinkedIn.