DocketNumber: No. CV90 03 08 61S
Citation Numbers: 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 2726
Judges: JONES, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/11/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
In any action to recover damages for personal injuries, the court or judge may order the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by one or more physicians or surgeons. No party may be compelled to undergo a physical examination by any physician to whom he objects in writing submitted to the court or judge.
This court is persuaded by the logic used by Judge Parsky in his opinion in Mulligan v. Goodrich,
Since it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that, if possible, no part of a legislative enactment is to be treated as insignificant and unnecessary (citation omitted); it follows that the thrust of the second sentence is to eliminate discretion in those CT Page 2727 instances where a plaintiff interposes a written objection to a particular physician.
Id. at 13. [Emphasis added].
The language of the second sentence of the statute is clear and unequivocal.
For the foregoing reason, the plaintiff's objection is sustained at this time. However, this court is of the opinion that the parties should be able to agree upon one or more physicians who can conduct a physical examination of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the court orders the parties to confer on more than one occasion, if need be, for the purpose of identifying one or more physicians who can conduct the aforesaid examination. Furthermore, the Court orders that within thirty dates hereof the parties file with this court a report stating the places and dates of the conferences as well as the results of said conferences.
CLARANCE J. JONES, JUDGE.
CT Page 2727