It was an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to deny plaintiff's request for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a). Defendant's expert is not a medical doctor but a PhD in rehabilitation counseling. As we held in D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. ( 182 A.D.2d 462), nothing in the Civil Practice Law and Rules or in the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts extends the scope of discovery to include examination of a party by persons in the allied health professions (see also, Radolinski v Otis El. Co., 188 A.D.2d 289). Plaintiff already has submitted and is being required to submit to additional examinations by several doctors of medicine, and defendants have made no showing regarding the nature of the procedures to be employed by their rehabilitative counselor or why he cannot make his evaluation from the available medical evidence.
It was not an abuse of discretion, however, for the trial court to deny plaintiff's request to videotape or audiotape the ordered psychiatric examination in light of the fact that counsel will be present during the examination to protect plaintiff's interests (cf., Barraza v. 55 W. 47th St. Co., 156 A.D.2d 271; Milam v. Mitchell, 51 Misc.2d 948; Murray v. Specialty Chems. Co., 100 Misc.2d 658). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (3) (see, Nold v. City of Troy, 94 A.D.2d 930).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.