He will not accuse you of anything. He will ask who referred her, how she paid, how many visits you billed, and what you charge to be here today. Every answer is ordinary. Then he stops asking, and lets the jury assemble them into a reason.
That is the financial bias attack, and it is the only one where the facts are not even about your medicine. It runs on discomfort — a hedge, a pause, a percentage you would rather not say. This module teaches you to confirm the fact first, sever the business decision from the clinical one, and show a methodology that does not change no matter who is paying.
When you finish, you will be able to
01Recognize a financial bias attack — counsel converting an ordinary business fact into evidence of clinical motive.
02Confirm a financial fact plainly and immediately, because hedging is what makes a number look like a secret.
03Run one answer structure — confirm, sever, invariant — across all six bias vectors.
04Separate an administrative decision from a clinical one without sounding evasive about either.
05Own a majority-PI practice and make the percentage irrelevant through identical methodology.
06Answer the fee question without apology, distinguishing payment for time from payment for content.
07Decline a timing inference — settlement, referral, retention — as outside your knowledge and clinically irrelevant.
Roughly three hours of work, best taken across four or five sittings. Nothing here is passive — every screen asks you to decide something.