Guide
Checking the papers behind an expert report
Expert reports in medical negligence, personal injury and criminal matters often rest on cited literature. Opposing counsel and their expert have one question: does each paper actually support the sentence it is attached to? Surprisingly often, it doesn't, or supports a narrower version.
A paper-by-paper method
- Get the full paper, not the abstract. Abstracts compress and sometimes overstate.
- Find the exact passage the report relies on. If you can't find one, that's a finding.
- Check the fit: population, exposure, outcome and design against the specific claim.
- Check primary vs exploratory. Subgroup and secondary analyses carry less weight.
- Check the date against the events in the case.
- Note what the paper does not establish.
- Check later literature for replication or contradiction.
A citation table you can copy
# | Report says (para) | Paper | Full text? | Passage found? | Fit | Status
1 | "___" (4.2) | ___ | Y/N | Y/N (p.__) | ___ | SUPPORTS / PARTIAL / DOES NOT / NOT CHECKABLE
2 |
...
Fit = population · exposure · outcome · design match the claim?
Common findings (illustrative)
| Finding | What it means |
|---|---|
| Cited for a causal claim; the study is observational | Association, not cause |
| Cited finding is from a subgroup | Exploratory, needs care |
| Only the abstract was available | Not checkable on this file |
| Paper published after the events | Can't show what was known at the time |
| Passage supports a weaker claim | The report overstates |
Where MIA fits
Attach the paper and quote the relevant passage of the report. Ask whether the paper bears the claim. MIA's working separates what the paper shows, what may be drawn from it, and what it doesn't establish. If only an abstract is on file, that's the first gap.
Use Deep Review for the key papers. Two independent workings are settled into agree, contest or still a gap, which is useful when the expert's reading is plausible but contestable.
With LIA Pro
On an FIA Plan seat, send an FIA Brief to LIA Pro so the legal file can use the finding. Only the packet you authorise crosses.
Recording the result
Keep the completed citation table with the file, and note who checked each paper and when. If a citation is later contested in a hearing, the record of the check, with the passage and its page, is what you'll rely on.
Questions
How do you challenge an expert's literature?
Check whether each cited paper, read in full, supports the specific claim, including population, outcome, design and date.
Can MIA read the whole expert report?
MIA works on what you attach: papers, scans and exhibits. LIA Pro is the desk for the legal file as a whole.
What if only the abstract is available?
Then the claim isn't checkable on the file, and MIA names that as the first gap.