We write to supplement the article, “Law Does Not Support Videotaping IMEs” by Alice Spitz, published on Nov. 20, 2013. Spitz writes in correction of a prior article entitled “ Turning the Table: Cross-Examining IME Doctor Using Video of Exam” by Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan. In the interest of full disclosure, this office is appellate counsel to one of the main defendants in the Bermejo v. Amsterdam & 76th Assoc., Index No. 23985/09 (Sup. Ct. Queens) (appeal pending) action referenced in the Rubinowitz and Torgan article.
The Rubinowitz and Torgan article endorses the surreptitious video recording of CPLR 3121 examinations, and then asserts that “the law is not so clear” in this regard. Spitz properly observes the inaccuracy of this statement, and points out that “three out of the four Appellate Divisions, as well as several lower courts have ruled that the videotaping of an IME was appropriately prohibited.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
