A well-known Neurosurgeon said "this is too good to be true".

We have worked with an insurance company for two years developing a cost-effective insurance package because we believe that medico-legal reporting experts are poorly served in indemnity.

A well-known Neurosurgeon phoned us to say, 'this is too good to be true'. He had to check it out with friends in insurance who validated the insurance company as a very reputable company.

He later told us that he'd been paying one of the MDOs, something like 10% of his medico-legal reporting income.

How have we made it cost-effective? What it boils down to is your view of this infamous case Jones v Kaney. Jones & Kaney is a situation that sits on its own facts. It was trumpeted at the time as the end of witness immunity which it most certainly isn't. Dr Kaney strayed out of her area of expertise, and it led to a substantially worse outcome for the claimant. There was subsequent litigation where she was found responsible.

Stay within your area of expertise, this video highlights our view on the medico-legal landscape.