Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

CASALI v. PHILLIPS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Dec 23, 1988
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: In the subject case, plaintiff failed to show any special circumstances warranting the presence of a stenographer at a physical examination to be conducted by defendant's doctor.

The purpose of a physical examination of a party is to narrow the areas of medical dispute through the assistance of the medical profession and to eliminate much of the medical controversy in a personal injury case (Jakubowski v Lengen, 86 A.D.2d 398, 400). In Jakubowski (supra, at 401), we cautioned against further representation at the examination, noting that the examining room should not "be turned into a hearing room with lawyers and stenographers from both sides participating."

The sole claim here is that subsequent to a physical examination in another case also involving plaintiff's attorney, the same physician selected by defendant in this case went beyond the purposes of the discovery proceeding and forwarded a letter regarding his opinion to another physician. The presence of a stenographer would have had no bearing upon such conduct, and other remedies exist to ensure that physicians do not violate discovery rules. Moreover, where valid reasons exist, a party may object to the physician designated by defendant and seek to have defendant select another doctor to conduct the examination (see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 A.D.2d 292, 295; Shapiro v Shapiro, 89 A.D.2d 538; Miocic v Winters, 75 A.D.2d 887; Jackson v Cocca, 27 A.D.2d 700).