DocketNumber: No. CV 00 0597560 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4455, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 734
Judges: BEACH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/12/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The issue of objections to medical examinations has been considered on numerous occasions by different Superior Courts, and there is no consensus and no binding appellate authority. Several considerations, however, seem to be more or less unanimously accepted.
First, it is clear that in personal injury cases such as this, a defendant has a right to request the plaintiff to submit to a physical or mental examination. See § 13-11 of the Practice Book; §
Second, it is equally clear that neither a party nor the court has the power to compel a person to undergo any physical or mental examination, at least in the context of personal injury litigation, if the plaintiff objects in writing. Such compulsion is prohibited by the clear language of §
The problem arises, of course, when the plaintiff objects in writing. In LeBlanc v. Cambo,
Section 13-11 (b) of the Practice Book expands somewhat on the language of §
I do not believe that the objection in issue is reasonable, in the context of the case. The ground stated, that the physician performs a number of such examinations on behalf of defendants and is biased, is not sufficient ground for objection. There is no claim that the physician is in any way incompetent or unethical, or that there is any adverse history between the physician and the patient. There is nothing personal to the patient that causes alarm or concern. On the contrary, the sole reason, it would appear, is grounded in litigation strategy. Even if it is true that the physician performs many such examinations, this is not a CT Page 4457 disqualifying factor. See, e.g., Moore v. Mintern, supra. It may well be that there are not a great number of specialists who agree to perform such examinations, partly because they may not enjoy testifying in court. Perhaps equally to the point, there is nothing inherently wrong with the defense paying a relatively conservative physician to perform the examination. Such factor is fair game for cross-examination, and our adversarial system can resolve opposing points of view. A plaintiff, after all, is free to consult with any physician of any philosophical bent. Without more, then, I do not find that an objection based on the asserted fact that the doctor performs many medical examinations on behalf of defendants is reasonable, at least in the circumstances of this case where an identical objection has previously been made and sustained as to another physician. The objection may make sense from a litigation point of view, but it is not a personal reason why a patient1 should not go to a particular physician
It has been suggested by different courts that different consequences should follow an objection not made on a reasonable ground and the plaintiff refuses to be examined. One court has suggested that the recourse is cross-examination, with preclusion of the plaintiff's expert testimony if repetitive objections become flagrant. Privee v. Burns,
I agree with the reasoning and results of Wallace v. Commerce Prop.,Inc.,
I believe that a similar result is appropriate here. The plaintiff's objection to the requested examination is overruled, with the understanding that he is not compelled by the court to submit to the examination. If he does not all end, the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on the issue, to request an adverse inference, and to an order precluding the plaintiff from offering opinion evidence in the same areas that would have been the subject of the examination. CT Page 4458
___________________, J. Beach