Key Takeaway
Court rules that having a non-disruptive representative present during an IME doesn't prevent defendants from conducting meaningful medical examinations under CPLR 3121.
Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are a critical component of personal injury and no-fault insurance cases, where insurance companies or defendants have the right to have an injured party examined by a doctor of their choosing. However, these examinations can be intimidating for plaintiffs, leading to questions about whether they can have someone present for support and protection.
The presence of representatives during IMEs has been a contentious issue in New York courts. While defendants argue that having an observer might interfere with the examination process, plaintiffs contend that a representative can help ensure the examination is conducted properly and provide emotional support during what can be a stressful experience.
Under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 3121, defendants have the right to conduct meaningful medical examinations. This rule balances the defendant’s need for proper medical assessment with the plaintiff’s rights during the examination process. The key question often becomes whether the presence of a representative actually disrupts or prevents a meaningful examination from taking place.
This balance is particularly important in New York no-fault insurance law cases, where IMEs are frequently requested to evaluate the extent of injuries and determine appropriate benefits. The outcome of these examinations can significantly impact a plaintiff’s ability to receive continued medical treatment and compensation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Guerra v McBean, 2015 NY Slip Op 03046 (1st Dept. 2015)
“Defendants failed to establish that plaintiffs’ representative’s presence at their physical examinations deprived defendants of the ability to conduct meaningful examinations (see CPLR 3121)“
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes an important precedent for plaintiffs who want representation during their IME. The court’s ruling demonstrates that the mere presence of a representative is not automatically disruptive to the examination process. Instead, defendants must prove that the representative’s presence actually interfered with their ability to conduct a thorough and meaningful medical evaluation. This places the burden of proof on the party claiming disruption, rather than requiring plaintiffs to justify having support during these often uncomfortable examinations.
Related Articles
- IME Diagnostic Testing Rights: What NY Claimants Need to Know
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME Reports Are Entitled to Qualified Privilege Against Defamation Claims
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
