AFTER THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN BECAUSE OF THIS
The accident happened. The diagnosis came afterward. Therefore, the accident caused the diagnosis.
That reasoning is intuitive, common, and sometimes correct. It is also incomplete. Temporal sequence is an important element of medical causation, but sequence alone does not establish cause.
The distinction matters across personal injury, medical malpractice, workers’ compensation, disability, toxic exposure, product liability, wrongful death, and other litigation. In each setting, the physician should be able to explain not merely that one event preceded another, but why the proposed relationship is medically supportable.
DISCOVERY OF A CONDITION IS NOT THE SAME AS CREATION OF A CONDITION
Consider a lumbar disc herniation identified on MRI after a collision. The post-event MRI establishes when the abnormality was documented. Unless prior imaging or other evidence exists, it may not establish exactly when the abnormality developed.
The same principle applies to degenerative disease, aneurysms, tumors, neuropathies, cardiac disease, and many other conditions that may be discovered because an event triggered medical evaluation.
A physician must distinguish between an event causing a condition, aggravating a condition, accelerating its clinical expression, precipitating symptoms from a previously silent condition, and merely leading to discovery of an unrelated condition. Those are not interchangeable causal conclusions.
MEDICAL CAUSATION IS A SYNTHESIS, NOT A MAGIC FACT
A sound analysis commonly considers multiple domains: mechanism, temporality, anatomic correlation, biologic plausibility, baseline condition, dose or magnitude of exposure where relevant, clinical trajectory, objective evidence, response to treatment, alternative explanations, and consistency of the longitudinal record.
Epidemiology has long used the Bradford Hill considerations to think about whether observed associations may be causal. Modern scholarship cautions against treating those considerations as a rigid checklist. In individual medico-legal cases, they can inform reasoning, but they do not substitute for diagnosis-specific clinical analysis and the facts of the particular patient.
MECHANISM MATTERS
Could the event plausibly produce the alleged injury?
This sounds elementary, yet it is often inadequately addressed. A mechanism need not be spectacular to cause injury, but the proposed causal pathway should make medical sense. Conversely, a severe event does not prove that every later diagnosis was caused by it.
Mechanism analysis may require understanding acceleration-deceleration, direct impact, rotational force, load transmission, anatomy, physiology, toxic exposure, medication effects, or disease-specific pathophysiology.
In some cases biomechanical or engineering expertise may be needed in addition to medical expertise. Physicians should remain within the limits of their training when the causal question crosses disciplines.
TEMPORALITY MATTERS – BUT IS NOT ENOUGH
The alleged cause generally must precede the effect. Yet temporality alone is weak evidence when the condition is common, the latency is inconsistent with the disease process, or strong competing causes exist.
The physician should ask whether the interval between event and symptom is medically coherent for the particular diagnosis.
The same chronology can have different significance in different conditions. Minutes may matter in an anaphylactic reaction. Hours or days may be compatible with evolving concussion symptoms. Years may be relevant in some occupational exposures.
The correct interval is disease-specific, not litigation-specific.
BASELINE AND ALTERNATIVE CAUSES
A causation opinion that ignores the patient’s prior condition is vulnerable. The reviewer should know what existed before the event and what other explanations can account for the outcome.
That does not mean every conceivable alternative must be eliminated. It means material alternatives should be identified and weighed rather than silently ignored.
In malpractice cases, for example, the adverse outcome may follow an alleged error but also be a known consequence of the underlying disease.
In personal injury cases, symptoms may follow trauma but coexist with substantial pre-existing pathology.
In toxic-exposure cases, background risk and competing exposures may be central.
The reasoning should show why the proposed cause is more or less persuasive in light of those facts.
“CONSISTENT WITH” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CAUSED BY”
Medical records frequently use phrases such as “consistent with,” “compatible with,” “could be related to,” “may represent,” “likely due to,” or “secondary to.”
Those phrases carry different degrees of diagnostic and causal commitment.
A finding can be consistent with a mechanism without proving that mechanism caused it.
A disc herniation may be compatible with trauma but also occur in degenerative disease.
Headache may be compatible with concussion but also with migraine, sleep deprivation, medication effects, or other conditions.
Attorneys should know whether the physician is expressing possibility, compatibility, probability, or a definitive diagnostic conclusion – and what evidence supports that level of confidence.
THE LEGAL STANDARD AND THE MEDICAL ANALYSIS ARE RELATED BUT NOT IDENTICAL
Legal standards governing expert causation testimony vary by jurisdiction and claim. Phrases such as “reasonable medical probability” may carry specific legal significance. A nationwide medical newsletter should therefore avoid pretending that one phrase supplies the evidentiary standard in every court.
What is constant is the need for a defensible medical foundation.
Adding a legal phrase to an unsupported conclusion does not strengthen the underlying methodology.
A physician should be able to answer:
- Why do you believe this event caused, aggravated, or contributed to the condition?
- What facts support that conclusion?
- What facts cut against it?
- What alternative explanations were considered?
- What are the limitations of the opinion?
CAUSATION REVIEW CAN HELP EITHER SIDE
A rigorous review is valuable precisely because it is not outcome-driven.
Plaintiff’s counsel may discover that a treating physician’s assumption of causation is poorly supported by prior records.
Defense counsel may discover that a “degenerative” condition was clinically silent for years before a sharply documented post-traumatic change.
Malpractice counsel may discover that an alleged breach occurred but probably did not cause the claimed outcome.
Wrongful-death counsel may discover multiple contributing mechanisms rather than a single cause.
Finding a weakness early is not a failed review. It can be one of the most valuable results of physician involvement because it allows counsel to adjust strategy before the weakness appears in an expert report, deposition, mediation, or trial.
THE LEGALMDS PERSPECTIVE
A medical chart tells you what clinicians observed and did.
A causation analysis asks why the condition occurred and whether the evidence supports linking it to a particular event. That second question often requires a different level of synthesis.
LegalMDs can help counsel evaluate mechanism, chronology, baseline, diagnostics, treatment, competing causes, medical literature, and the longitudinal record before a causal theory becomes entrenched.
We can also help identify the precise medical questions that should be posed to treating doctors or retained experts.
The strongest medical opinion is not the one that uses the most confident language. It is the one whose reasoning remains coherent when every important fact – favorable and unfavorable – is placed on the table.
REFERENCES
- Hill AB. The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.
- Höfler M. The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2005;2:11.
- Danner D, Sagall EL. Medicolegal causation: a source of professional misunderstanding. Am J Law Med. 1977;3(3):303-308.
- Determination of causal associations in occupational medicine and the medico-legal context: references and standards. PubMed PMID: 34603420.
Let Us Know How We Can Help You
This situation is another example of how we can assist you with all the medical issues in your cases.
Call (954) 649-5739 or email DrC@legalmds.com to schedule a time to talk about one of your cases.
- Medical Summary Reports for Settlement Letters
- IME Observation & IME Rebuttal Reports
- Reports Answering Specific Medical Questions
- Standard of Care Reviews
- Liaison with Treating Doctors
- Help with Strategies to Promote Medical Theories
- Interpretation of Meaning, or Lack Thereof, of Medical Reports & Records
- Independent Record Reviews
- Assessment of Case Validity Regarding Medical Issues
- Referral to Expert Medical Witnesses
- Medical Research
- Facilitation of Communication with Clients, Families, Professionals and Service & Governmental Agencies
- Case Coordination
- Deposition & Trial Question Preparation
- Table-side Deposition & Trial Assistance
As you know, we have purposefully kept our fees exceptionally low allowing you the opportunity to have us review your cases early in your representation while controlling your expenses.
© 2026 Legal MDs. All rights reserved. | Cornell Calinescu, MD | www.LegalMDs.com