A formal complaint requires a prompt, factual and proportionate response. It should be treated as a professional process, not as an argument about whether the claim should succeed. The expert must establish what is alleged, preserve the relevant material and decide whether the complaint reveals a factual error, a misunderstanding, a service failure or a genuine concern about the opinion.
Acknowledge before investigating.
The complaint should be acknowledged through the appropriate process and the person raising it should be told what will happen next. The expert may need to notify the medical reporting organisation, instructing solicitor, complaints lead or professional indemnity provider, depending upon the allegation.
Acknowledgement is not an admission that the complaint is justified. It confirms that the concern has been received and will be considered fairly. For direct MedCo work involving an unrepresented claimant, the complaints process should be clear, fair and proportionate. The claimant should also be told how to escalate the matter to MedCo if it cannot be resolved directly.
The expert should check any organisational procedure before replying personally. An improvised response can create inconsistent accounts or disclose information to somebody who is not entitled to receive it.
Identify what is being complained about.
Not every disagreement with a report is a complaint about professional conduct.
A claimant may dispute the expert’s diagnosis, prognosis or causation opinion. They may instead identify a factual error, such as the wrong occupation, an incorrect accident description or a symptom attributed to the wrong body area. Other complaints concern delay, manner during the examination, confidentiality or inadequate opportunity to explain the history.
A disagreement with a properly formed clinical opinion does not become a factual error merely because the claimant rejects it. The ICO distinguishes factual accuracy from professional opinion: a record of an opinion is not automatically inaccurate because somebody disagrees with it, although it must be clear that it is an opinion and any incorrect factual basis should be recorded.
The expert should therefore separate challenges to facts from challenges to judgement.
Preserve the original material.
The original report, appointment notes, instructions, records reviewed, correspondence, amendments and audit trail should be preserved. Nothing should be rewritten or deleted to make the complaint easier to answer.
Where software or AI assisted with the report, available records showing how the disputed passage was produced and checked should be retained. MedCo has warned that report errors are sometimes blamed on software, while responsibility for checking the signed report remains with the expert.
Contemporaneous notes should be reviewed before any detailed response is prepared. Memory alone is a poor basis for answering allegations about an examination months earlier. The expert should also check whether the complaint concerns an outdated draft.
Respond to the allegation, not the person.
A good response deals with each material point in neutral language. It should explain what information was available, what the expert recorded, how the conclusion was reached and whether any part of the complaint is accepted. Unsupported criticism of the claimant, solicitor or reporting organisation should be avoided.
The GMC requires medical experts to provide objective and impartial evidence, work within their competence and be able to explain and justify their professional decisions.
Where an error is clear, it should be acknowledged plainly. Describing an incorrect date, copied paragraph or impossible mechanism as a “minor typographical issue” may damage confidence more than the original mistake. An apology for an error or poor service does not require the expert to abandon a clinical opinion that remains properly supported.
Correct facts without negotiating the opinion.
A factual correction should be made through the proper amendment process. The original wording, corrected information and any effect upon the opinion should remain identifiable.
The expert should not alter the report merely to resolve dissatisfaction. If the claimant says the prognosis is too short, that is not a reason to extend it. If new information has been supplied, the expert should assess whether it changes the evidential basis and explain the result.
A correction may leave the opinion unchanged. In another case, a small factual error may affect diagnosis or causation and require a revised conclusion. The important point is to show the reasoning.
The expert should also distinguish between correcting a factual statement and changing a professional opinion. The claimant may be entitled to challenge an incorrect date, employment history or symptom description. They are not entitled to dictate the diagnosis or prognosis. Where the original opinion was based upon incorrect information, however, the expert must reconsider it rather than defend it through careful wording.
Consider confidentiality separately.
A complaint may contain medical information or allegations about other people. The response should be sent only through authorised channels and disclose no more information than necessary.
Where the complaint concerns inaccurate personal data, unauthorised disclosure or another data-protection issue, it may need to be referred to the organisation’s data-protection process. Since June 2026, organisations handling personal data must provide a clear route for data-protection complaints, acknowledge them within 30 days, investigate appropriately and communicate the outcome.
The expert should not assume that a general clinical response is sufficient where the complaint raises a separate information-governance concern.
Care is also required where the complaint has been submitted by a relative or another third party. The expert should confirm that the person is authorised to receive information before discussing the report or the claimant’s medical history.
Learn without making a false admission.
Some complaints are not upheld but still reveal a weakness in practice.
The appointment letter may not explain the expert’s role clearly. The report template may invite copied errors. The examination may have been adequate but felt hurried because the process was not explained.
The GMC requires doctors to declare and reflect upon formal complaints for appraisal and to demonstrate learning or changes made where appropriate. Reflection should be genuine, but it does not require the expert to agree with every allegation. A repeated pattern deserves attention. Several complaints about the same errors, delays or manner of examination suggest a system problem rather than isolated dissatisfaction.
The response should therefore identify any practical action. This might involve revising a template, allowing more time for appointments, improving proofreading, changing administrative procedures or explaining the examination process more clearly.
A formal complaint should not be treated as an attack to defeat or an instruction to rewrite an unfavourable opinion. It is a test of whether the expert can examine their own work with the same objectivity expected when examining somebody else’s evidence.
The strongest response is usually the least theatrical: identify the allegation, check the source material, admit what is wrong, defend what remains supportable and explain what will change.
Professional confidence is not shown by refusing criticism. It is shown by responding to it accurately.
