Importance of Physical Examinations to Medical Malpractice Defense
Medical Malpractice Defense columnists John L.A. Lyddane and Barbara D. Goldberg write: The importance of the defendants' physical examinations of the plaintiff claiming injury in a medical malpractice case should not be underestimated.
November 20, 2017 at 02:00 PM
18 minute read
The importance of the defendants' physical examinations of the plaintiff claiming injury in a medical malpractice case should not be underestimated. Occasionally, the permanent injury claimed by the plaintiff has resolved, or the records of treatment do not focus on the facts important in her lawsuit. Where a patient has multiple comorbidities which affect his work or life expectancy, the damages for injuries claimed to be permanent may vary from what would be the case for the statistical person represented by the actuarial tables in the Pattern Jury Instructions.
Availability of Physical Examinations
The statutory basis for obtaining physical examinations is stated in broad terms in CPLR §3121, which permits the defendant to obtain physical examinations whenever “physical condition” is affirmatively placed in controversy. The statute's reference to physical condition does not limit the examination to the claimed injury but takes the broader view that other aspects of the plaintiff's condition may have a direct bearing on the liability claims, the question of causation, or the issues of damages. There is no restriction in CPLR §3121 “limiting the number of physical or mental examinations to which a party may be subjected.” Huggins v. NYCTA, 225 A.D.2d 732 (2d Dep't 1996). Examinations by doctors in several different specialties may be obtained where the first examiner supports the need for evaluation by other specialties (see Carden v. Callocchio, 100 A.D.2d 608, 608 (2d Dep't 1984)), and examinations by the same examiner may be warranted by the passage of time or change of circumstances following a first examination (see Huggins, supra, at 733). Where counsel for the plaintiff resists the request for multiple examinations and there are a number of participating defendants, cooperation among the defendants' attorneys with regard to both timing and specialty may overcome the difficulty in securing the full complement of examinations.
The location of the examination and choice of examiner are largely left to the discretion of the defense. This meant that in Chong v. N.Y. Downtown Hospital, 2012 Slip Op 32877[U], the plaintiff was ordered to pay the expenses of the defense examining physician's travel to Korea because the plaintiff was unable to return to the United States. As observed by the court in Chen v. Zhi, 109 A.D.3d 815 (2d Dep't 2013) (which cited the Chong decision with approval), the defense must be able to retain an examining physician in whom it has confidence to not only perform a valid examination, but also to appear as a trial witness.
Abrupt retirement (see Rosado v. A&P Food Stores, 26 Misc. 3d 935, 940 (Sup. Westchester 2009)) or death of the examining physician prior to trial (see Galdi v. Kaliya, 32 Misc. 3d 128A (App. Term 1st Dep't 2011)) have been found to constitute the unusual and unanticipated conditions warranting further physical examinations of the plaintiff, but the fact that the examiner has been disciplined or surrendered his license has been found insufficient (Giordano v. Zhen, 103 A.D.3d 774 (2d Dep't 2013)). It is also apparent that the conduct of the examining physician and/or defense counsel may be found to have effected a waiver of additional physical examinations. Sanchez v. Trevz Trucking, 124 A.D.3d 527 (1st Dep't 2015).
Process of Obtaining Physical Examinations
Section 202.17 of the Uniform Court Rules is specific regarding when and how the defense may obtain physical examinations. It also sets forth what the plaintiff must do in advance of the defendant's examinations. This is worth reading because the terms provided by the Uniform Court Rules are rarely written into the Preliminary Conference Order. The requirements are specific and adherence to their terms serves to narrow the issues for the defense physical examination and all future aspects of trial preparation.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIllusory Contract; Eviction Based on Illegal Use of Premises: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250