Preliminary expert report in personal injury cases and the costs

A personal injury case can stall on a medical question. You experience limitations, but the insurer disputes the link with the accident. Or the parties disagree about the prognosis and therefore cannot calculate the future damage. An independent expert examination can then help to clarify the facts.

Written by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Last updated: 17 September 2026.

A preliminary expert report in personal injury cases is an examination requested through the court before the proceedings on the merits have reached the relevant stage. The report can give insight into your evidential position and bring a settlement closer. It is not an automatic ruling on liability or compensation.

In brief

• You request a preliminary expert report before the case is pending or, if proceedings have already been instituted, before the case has been entered on the cause list (Article 196(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv)). Once that point has passed, an expert examination takes place within the pending proceedings.
• It is the route to take if the parties cannot agree between themselves; a joint instruction outside the court is often quicker and cheaper.
• The court appoints the expert after consulting the parties and sets the questions to be answered; those questions determine the value of the report.
• The advance payment is in principle made by the requesting party; no advance is imposed where subsidised legal aid has been granted.
• Since 1 January 2025 the modernised law of evidence has applied; always check the current procedural position.

The modernised law of evidence has applied since 1 January 2025. That is why it is important to use the current rules and to check whether proceedings are already pending. Below you can read when this route can be worthwhile, how the expert is chosen and why the advance payment of costs is something different from the final allocation of costs.

Which question should the examination answer?

Do not start from the wish to have as much investigation carried out as possible. First identify which point of dispute is blocking the settlement of the claim. Is it about the nature of the injury, the link with the accident, permanent limitations or the likelihood of future treatment? A targeted question helps you choose the right expertise.

Medical and legal questions must be kept apart. A doctor can describe medical findings, limitations and a prognosis. Whether a party is legally liable does not simply form part of the doctor’s instructions. The final assessment of the evidence also remains a task for the parties and, where applicable, the court.

Sometimes a medical expert assessment is not yet the missing step. If it is unclear how an accident happened, witnesses or other documents may be needed. If the limitations are established but the loss of earnings is disputed, an employment expert or an actuarial expert may be more appropriate. The examination must address the real uncertainty.

First explore whether a joint instruction is possible

The parties can jointly instruct an expert without involving the court. This requires agreement on the person, the questions, the information and the procedure. A joint instruction can be a practical route if both parties want an independent examination and only need to agree on details.

Put the arrangements in writing. State who receives the report, how comments on a draft are made and how additional questions are dealt with. Also discuss the costs and the intended weight of the report. Without clear arrangements, a dispute about its usefulness may still arise after the examination.

A joint report and a court-ordered report do not necessarily carry the same weight. In principle, a party cannot simply distance itself from a report produced at the joint request of the parties, but the court remains free to assess it. With a court-appointed expert, however, the appointment, the questions and the course of the examination are in the hands of the court, which, when assessing the report, also examines whether the investigation was sufficiently transparent and careful. Which route carries more weight therefore depends on the quality of the report and on what the parties agreed beforehand. An application to the court can be considered when consultation does not lead to a suitable instruction. It is useful to keep earlier proposals and responses. They can show which question remains open and why the court’s involvement is being sought. Litigating purely as a means of applying pressure can actually make the substantive assessment more difficult.

The law of evidence since January 2025

The Act simplifying and modernising the law of evidence changed the rules on evidentiary measures. According to the commencement decree, the Act entered into force on 1 January 2025. Older articles online may therefore describe outdated numbering or procedures.

For preliminary evidentiary measures, Articles 196 et seq. of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure are among the relevant provisions. Article 202 Rv contains provisions on the preliminary expert report within the new rules. The fact that an article number also appears in older explanations does not mean that its content and context have remained unchanged.

The Act contains transitional provisions for cases that were already pending, or in which an application had already been filed, when it entered into force. So have the court documents and the date of commencement checked. It is not only the date of the accident but above all the procedural position that determines which procedural rules must be applied.

What changes if proceedings are already pending

Article 196(1) Rv draws the line precisely: a preliminary evidentiary measure can be requested before the case is pending or, if proceedings have already been instituted, before the case has been entered on the cause list. That distinction matters. ‘Something is already going on’ is too vague to determine the right route.

Once the proceedings on the merits have reached the relevant stage, an expert examination can be raised within those proceedings. The provisions on expert examinations in pending proceedings are then relevant, including Article 186 Rv. A separate preliminary application is therefore not the appropriate route at every stage.

Appeal proceedings also call for a precise assessment. Have it established which case is pending, which documents have been served or filed and whether transitional law applies. Choosing a procedure solely on the basis of an old template can cause unnecessary costs and delay.

When can the court refuse the application?

An application must be sufficiently specific and serve a relevant interest. The statutory rules list grounds on which a preliminary evidentiary measure can be refused, such as insufficiently specified information, insufficient interest, conflict with the due conduct of proceedings, abuse of power or other compelling reasons.

This means that not every examination you would like is automatically granted. Describe which potential dispute is at stake and how the findings requested will help resolve it. An unlimited search for anything that might one day be relevant is harder to justify than a clearly defined medical question.

The other party can raise objections. Sometimes these concern the substance, for example the chosen discipline. Sometimes they concern the timing or the procedural route. A good application anticipates such points without fixing the outcome of the examination in advance. The aim is usable evidence, not confirmation at any price.

Choosing the right expert

The expert must have the appropriate knowledge and be sufficiently independent. Brain injury may require different expertise from an orthopaedic limitation or a complex pension calculation. The nature of the dispute determines which discipline is suitable and whether more than one expert is needed.

Discuss any previous involvement with the parties or the file. A treating doctor has valuable information but plays a different role from an independent examiner. Independence is not only about actual bias, but also about circumstances that may give rise to understandable doubt.

Availability is relevant, but must not be the only criterion. A quick appointment is of little help if the expert cannot answer the key question. Where possible, ask in advance about experience, expected turnaround time and a cost estimate. The court decides on the appointment after consulting the parties.

Neutral and usable questions

Good questions leave room for findings that may be favourable as well as unfavourable. They ask about relevant medical data, symptoms, limitations and prognosis, without assuming in advance that all the consequences stem from the accident. Pre-existing symptoms can also be included where necessary.

Questions about the situation without the accident must be worded carefully. An expert cannot predict every future development with certainty. So ask for the reasoning behind, the likelihood of and the uncertainties in possible scenarios. That helps later with a balanced calculation of the damage.

Avoid using legal concepts as a medical instruction without explanation. A doctor does not, for example, have to decide independently which damage should legally be attributed. Keep medical findings and legal conclusions recognisably separate. That way it remains clear who is responsible for which judgement.

What information does the expert receive?

The expert needs relevant and sufficiently complete information. Selectively providing only favourable documents can undermine the reliability of the examination. At the same time, handing over your entire medical history without limitation is not a given. The information must match the examination and the comparison required.

Draw up an overview of the available documents and discuss any missing information. Think of treatment reports, earlier examinations, relevant information about symptoms before the accident and documents about how you function. Medical data require attention to consent, purpose limitation and the role of medical advisers.

Ask for a verifiable list of the documents in the file. This will later show what the expert based their findings on. If an important document is missing or incorrect, report this in good time via the agreed route. A well-organised file saves questions and reduces the risk of a report based on incomplete facts.

Preparing for the examination

Read the instructions in advance and note which events and limitations you want to explain. Describe specific examples: how long you can sit, which tasks you cannot manage or why your return to work is stalling. Exaggerating does not help, but neither does playing down your symptoms. A recognisable description of an ordinary day can clarify a great deal.

Do not bring your own pile of extra documents without discussing how they will be formally submitted. Under the applicable procedure, both parties must be able to know which information is being used. Also ask in advance what practical preparation is needed and whether someone can accompany you.

An expert assessment is not a treatment appointment. The expert examines the questions put to them and does not automatically take over your care. So discuss medical concerns or any deterioration with your own practitioner. Do not expect the examination to provide an immediate solution for acute symptoms or a guaranteed treatment pathway.

Responding to a draft report

With a draft report, it must be clear which responses are permitted and within what period. Check factual details, such as accident dates, work duties and the medical history as set out. A demonstrable error should be identified specifically, with a reference to the correct information.

Distinguish between factual corrections and substantive criticism. The mere fact that a conclusion is unfavourable does not make it wrong. When criticising, ask for an explanation of missing reasoning, contradictions or relevant documents that were not taken into account. Your medical adviser can help you to word those questions carefully.

In certain medical examinations, special rights of inspection and blocking may apply. Their applicability and consequences must be assessed specifically. A decision to withhold a report can affect your evidential position. Discuss this beforehand and do not take such a step solely out of disappointment with the content.

Advance payment and final settlement: who pays what?

Paying in advance and ultimately bearing the costs are two different questions. This overview sets them side by side.

Cost item	Who pays in advance?	Who ultimately bears it?	Points to watch
Expert’s fee	In principle the requesting party, paid to the court registry (Art. 187 Rv). The court may designate the other party or both parties	Depends on the court’s decision and on liability; where liability is admitted, often as reasonable costs of establishing damage and liability (Art. 6:96(2) BW)	Ask for a budget in advance and agree how additional work will be handled
Advance where subsidised legal aid applies	No advance; it is not imposed where subsidised legal aid has been granted or court fees for persons of limited means apply (Art. 187 Rv)	Follows the ordinary decision on costs	Check that the legal aid certificate was issued before the application
Court fee for the application	The applicant	May form part of the decision on costs	The rate depends on the court and on your income
Your own legal assistance	You yourself, or your legal expenses insurer	Where liability is admitted, usually via Art. 6:96(2) BW; in partial dispute proceedings the court assesses these costs (Art. 1019aa Rv)	A favourable report does not guarantee that every expense will be reimbursed in full
Additional questions or further explanation	Usually the party requesting it	Follows the decision on costs	Often cheaper than instructing a second expert

Who pays the advance for the expert?

The district court can set an advance payment for the expert’s costs. Who is designated to pay that advance depends on the applicable rules and the circumstances. Do not assume that a liability insurer always pays in advance, not even when you are the one requesting the examination.

Before applying, ask for insight into the expected costs and how they will be funded. Besides the examination, court fees and the costs of legal assistance may be relevant. Subsidised legal aid and other funding arrangements have their own conditions. A general statement that litigation is free of charge for victims therefore gives insufficient information.

Moreover, an advance is not necessarily the final total. Additional work may lead to extra costs. Agree how a revised budget will be handled and who will be informed about it. This prevents the examination from going further financially than the parties anticipated.

Final costs and the weight of the report

Who pays costs in advance and who ultimately bears them are different questions. The final allocation may depend on a court decision, liability, the reasonableness of the costs incurred and arrangements between the parties. A favourable report does not automatically guarantee that every expense will be reimbursed in full.

The report is a means of evidence. It can carry considerable weight, but it is not the same as a final judgment on the entire claim. The parties may still debate legal causation, the assessment of damage or other aspects that fell outside the instructions. The court assesses its significance in the context of the entire file.

Where matters are unclear, a further explanation or supplement may be more appropriate than an immediate new examination. Instructing a second expert solely because the first outcome is disappointing is not an obvious solution. First identify which specific shortcoming needs to be remedied and which procedure is available for that.

Fictitious example of a targeted expert assessment

A warehouse worker has persistent shoulder complaints after an accident. The insurer points to earlier wear and tear, while the worker was working full-time before the incident. The parties disagree about the limitations and the expected course. An orthopaedic assessment is considered to examine those medical questions.

The instructions ask about the file before and after the accident, the current findings and possible developments without the incident. The expert does not decide what amount the insurer must pay. On the basis of the medical findings, it can later be considered whether an employment expert’s assessment is needed.

This example is fictitious. It shows that an expert assessment is most useful when the missing insight has been clearly defined. A carefully delineated examination can make the next step possible, even if not every uncertainty disappears and the parties have not yet reached a full settlement.

An examination plan with decision points

An expert assessment has more practical value when it is clear in advance what will happen with the results. Record which next step depends on the report. Think of an employment expert’s assessment, a new calculation of the damage or renewed discussions about liability. This prevents a costly report from lying in the file without follow-up once it has been received.

Also allow for the possibility that the examination does not produce a clear-cut answer. Agree how missing information or additional questions will be handled. Sometimes a further explanation is enough; sometimes a different discipline turns out to be needed. That should stem from a specific information problem and not merely from disappointment with a conclusion.

During the examination, keep the rest of the case moving where possible. Costs that are already clear, practical care needs and monitoring of deadlines do not always have to wait for every medical question. Your representative can distinguish between elements that genuinely depend on the expert assessment and elements that can already be discussed.

Once it is complete, ask for an understandable explanation of its significance. Which points have been clarified, which uncertainties remain and which legal conclusions do not yet follow from it? This puts you in a better position to judge whether the examination has enabled the intended step and which choice is then justified.

The procedural rules on expert examinations

These provisions of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure have been checked on wetten.overheid.nl:

• Article 196 Rv paragraph 1 determines when you can request a preliminary evidentiary measure: before the case is pending or, if proceedings have already been instituted, before the case has been entered on the cause list. Paragraph 2 sets out the grounds on which the court may refuse the application: the information requested is insufficiently specified, there is insufficient interest, the application conflicts with the due conduct of proceedings, there is abuse of power, or there are other compelling reasons. Outside those grounds, the court grants the application.
• Article 202 Rv if the court grants the application for a preliminary expert report, it appoints one or more experts after consulting the parties. The decision states the points on which their opinion is sought. The ordinary provisions on experts apply mutatis mutandis.
• Article 187 Rv the advance for the costs is paid to the court registry by the claimant, in other words the requesting party, unless the court, in view of the circumstances, designates the other party or both parties. No advance is imposed on parties with subsidised legal aid or paying court fees for persons of limited means.
• Final costs the advance says nothing yet about who ultimately bears the costs. Where liability is admitted, the costs of the examination may count as reasonable costs of establishing damage and liability under Article 6:96(2) of the Dutch Civil Code.
• Article 1019w Rv if the dispute concerns a clearly defined point, partial dispute proceedings may be quicker than an expert assessment; the court then decides that point itself.
• Article 6:96 BW and Article 1019aa Rv in partial dispute proceedings, the court assesses the costs incurred on the victim’s side, taking into account the reasonable costs referred to in Article 6:96(2) of the Dutch Civil Code.
• Modernised law of evidence the Act simplifying and modernising the law of evidence entered into force on 1 January 2025. The provisions on preliminary evidentiary measures were revised as part of it. In a pending case, check which regime applies.

The questions put to the expert matter more than the choice of expert: neutral, complete and verifiable questions produce a report that both parties can work with. See also medical expert assessment in personal injury cases.

Frequently asked questions about expert examinations

Is a preliminary expert report mandatory?

No. It is one possible route for clarifying relevant facts. Sometimes a joint out-of-court instruction is sufficient, or other evidence is needed. The choice depends on the dispute and the procedural position.

Can I choose an expert myself?

You can make a proposal, but in a court-ordered examination the court decides on the appointment after consulting the parties. Appropriate expertise and independence are important points to consider.

Is this still possible if my court case is already under way?

Only within a narrow margin. Article 196(1) Rv allows a preliminary evidentiary measure before the case is pending or, if proceedings have already been instituted, before the case has been entered on the cause list. Once the case has been entered, an expert examination takes place within the pending proceedings (under Article 186 Rv, among other provisions). So have it established which case is pending and whether it has already been entered on the cause list.

Does the insurer always pay the costs?

No. The advance and the final allocation of costs must be assessed separately. Ask in advance about the budget, the funding and any possible additional costs. Liability alone does not answer every question about costs.

May I correct the draft report?

You may respond to the draft. This is intended for factual inaccuracies, missing documents and unclear reasoning, not for getting the conclusion changed because it does not suit you. Respond point by point with references to the file and, where necessary, support substantive criticism with medical arguments. In the final report, the expert must show what they have done with the responses.

Is the court bound by the report?

The report is a means of evidence within the file. It can be important, but it does not independently decide all legal questions. Any objections must be raised specifically and with supporting reasons.

How long does an expert assessment take?

That varies according to the discipline, availability and the scope of the instructions. Missing documents and responses to a draft can also have an effect. Ask for a realistic timetable and discuss which steps depend on it.

What is the difference from an expert assessment agreed jointly by the parties?

With a joint instruction, the parties choose the expert, the questions and the allocation of costs themselves; this is usually quicker and cheaper. If you cannot reach agreement, or the other party refuses to cooperate, Article 202 Rv provides the route to the court. The reports do not automatically carry equal weight: the court assesses both freely, but with an expert it has appointed, the appointment, the questions and the course of the examination are under its control, which makes the report easier to scrutinise. The process does take longer, however.

Can the court refuse my application?

Yes, but only on the grounds set out in Article 196(2) Rv: the information requested is insufficiently specified, there is insufficient interest, conflict with the due conduct of proceedings, abuse of power, or other compelling reasons. Outside those grounds, the court grants the application. A well-reasoned application therefore explains why the examination is needed, what it can achieve and why the parties could not reach agreement between themselves.

Choosing a suitable examination route

An expert report works best when the question, the procedural route and the costs are clear in advance. So first establish which evidence is missing and whether a joint instruction is possible. Then check whether the preliminary route or an examination within pending proceedings is appropriate.

Arslan Advocaten assists in personal injury disputes and can assess whether an expert examination should be used. You can submit your file via the contact page. Include existing reports, correspondence about the questions to be put to the expert and any court documents.

Related articles

• Two accidents with the same symptoms
• Concussion with persistent symptoms
• Medical expert assessment in personal injury cases
• The partial dispute procedure
• What does a medical adviser do?
• Medical causation in personal injury cases
• How long does a personal injury case take?

Sources and further explanation

• Act simplifying and modernising the law of evidence
• Entry into force on 1 January 2025
• The Dutch judiciary on personal injury
• The Dutch Personal Injury Council on guidelines

---

Related Legal Services

• Learn more about Personal Injury
• Learn more about Employment Law
• Learn more about Insurance Law