Submission: Opposition to Proposals Reducing Physician Autonomy and Increasing Liability in Non-Treating Medical Examinations Preserving Clinical Independence: Physician autonomy is essential for the objectivity and accuracy required in non-treating medical examinations (NTMEs). Excessive regulatory obligations, drawn from various provincial standards, undermine clinical independence and risk converting objective expert opinions into formulaic compliance exercises, ultimately harming the value and credibility of these assessments.​ Deterrence of Participation: Imposing greater liability risks on physicians performing NTMEs deters qualified professionals from participating. This reduces the pool of expert assessors, delays legal and insurance processes, and limits access to impartial medical expertise, negatively impacting all stakeholders.​ Defensive Administrative Practices: Increased liability leads to defensive medicine—physicians may order unnecessary tests, over-document, and focus on avoiding complaints rather than delivering accurate opinions. This raises costs and dilutes the purpose of NTMEs. Role Confusion and Legal Overlap: Expanding obligations blurs the line between treating and non-treating physicians. Many suggested requirements duplicate—sometimes contradict—existing legal and professional frameworks, causing confusion and unfair exposure to multiple oversight bodies.​ Economic Burden and Reduced Feasibility: New obligations increase paperwork and administrative demand while providing little demonstrated improvement in assessment quality. This jeopardizes the economic viability of IME/NTME practice and risks losing experienced practitioners. Contradiction of Core Purpose: NTMEs are intended to provide independent expert opinion, not to establish patient-physician relationships or treatment duties. Imposing treating physician-like obligations undermines impartiality and results in misunderstanding about the physician’s role. Existing Safeguards Are Sufficient: Current standards, codes of ethics, and legal obligations already address examinee rights, conflicts of interest, and appropriate information sharing. Additional duplicative requirements only add confusion and complexity.​ Conclusion: Recommendations and obligations which erode autonomy and increase NTMEs liability are counterproductive; they harm both physicians and the healthcare, legal, and insurance systems that rely on impartial expert opinions. These changes risk driving skilled physicians out of the field and ultimately reducing the quality and availability of independent assessments.