While the doctor`s main job is to clearly explain the medical side of things, the lawyer`s job is to argue for his client and win the argument in points. The lawyer relies on the doctor to provide him with the necessary medical information, which he integrates into a legal thesis that he hopes will convince the arbitral tribunal of the accuracy of his testimony on behalf of his client. The idea is that neither the doctor nor the lawyer should see themselves as individuals, but as members of a team of investigators and interpreters who work together to shed light on the true nature of the dispute, to allow the judge to be well informed, to weigh the arguments, to see the truth and to find his side. Hard and honest work and common sense usually provide the tools to build a successful case. Teamwork is essential, neither the doctor nor the lawyer tries to surpass themselves. Winning for the customer is key. The predetermined rules of the legal system, which have already been established and improved over the years, if properly nourished and well-oiled, will provide the energy needed to complete the case and allow for an orderly and convincing presentation of the facts. Regardless of the quality of the arguments, the final decision always rests with the judge or jury. If a party feels justice has been denied, there is always the appeal process to rely on. Throughout their medical studies, future doctors spend most of their time learning and studying the inner workings of the human body in order to pass their examinations, so that one day they may be able to accomplish that always daunting task already pursued by their predecessors to serve humanity, to restore normal health, To eradicate diseases, to prevent their occurrence, explain diseases to patients and stay out of prison. However, once in practice, the physician may one day be called upon to assess the medico-legal aspects of a case in his or her practice or that of a colleague, which may never have been demonstrated during medical school. The physician who gives “expert opinion” becomes known as an “expert” not so much because he has all the recognizable distinctions or has performed brilliantly on the medical scene in his field, but rather because he has the necessary training and experience and is expected to know everything there is to know about the medical side of things in this case.

is expected to be available, willing and able to explain the facts on paper and, if necessary, as a witness in court. While in court, he must also be willing to discuss certain contentious issues arising from the case, while addressing members of the legal profession and defending his opinion if refuted by equivalent “experts” for the opposition. At all times, he must remain focused and informative and not let his personal feelings invade his considerations. He is there at the request of the court and must remember to address his words to the judge who will finally make the final decision. His main objective is not necessarily to crush the opposition, but to adequately represent the medical interests of his client. The physician who is attracted to medico-legal issues is usually a specialist in practice for at least 10 years (orthopaedics and psychiatry are the most common) and begins to take cases (expert opinions) from publicly funded institutions such as the Workers` Compensation Board, provincial auto insurance, Pension Board, military. Over time, depending on its performance and reputation, other agencies may call: insurance companies, individual law firms, medical protection agencies, unions. While different clients want the same answers, each one formulates its questions differently to achieve its goals, and each creates different guides for assessing permanent disability. The old adage “caveat emptor” for the employee, perhaps thinly veiled, is still present.

The world of forensic expertise can be both medically beneficial for the candidate and a compelling and interesting medical practice for the expert. A well-done expertise that includes accurate medical information and gives objective and clear answers to the questions asked usually determines the right path for an injured worker after an injury and can thus serve as a liberating and even therapeutic force. The art and science of medicine come together to illuminate the arena of social justice. A good, trustworthy employee will also find it easier to get back to work. A worker with a bad reputation is unlikely to be as happy. Goodwill must be present on all sides. In the case of unionized workers, the union representative will often want to be part of the medico-legal process. Sometimes they tried to influence medical decisions and be present at the worker`s actual medical examination.

I believe that there is no rule that says they must be present, and although the expert accepts that the union is there to protect workers` rights, he has every right to refuse the union`s presence in the investigation room. However, the union has the right to challenge the report if it believes its standards of justice have been denied. In general, a third party is inadmissible during a forensic examination, unless he is present as a proven expert (translator, sign specialist).