Plaintiff's Brief Re Defendant's Motion To Compel Med Testing

Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Medical Testing and Defendant’s Motion to Compel DME or, Alternatively, to Limit Plaintiff to One Medical Expert

STATE OF ________________

IN THE _________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ______________

___________________,

Plaintiff, Case No. _____________

vs Hon. _____________

ABC INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL EMG TESTING

and

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL plaintiff’s attendance at independent

orthopedic examination or in the alternative to limit

plaintiff to a single medical expert at the time of trial

Defendant has filed two separate motions regarding the scheduling of a defense medical examination. In order to avoid duplicity and for the convenience of the Court, Plaintiff files one Brief in Support of both Motions.

Introduction:

This case arises out of a claim for No-Fault benefits, which defendant has unreasonably refused to pay. Plaintiff was involved in an accident on [date], during which she seriously injured her left arm and her neck and back.

Facts:

Prior to this litigation, Defendant scheduled Plaintiff for a medical examination with [Doctor] in [date]. Plaintiff timely appeared for the examination and upon request of [Doctor], presented her identification as proof that it was in fact herself appearing for the exam. [Doctor] requested to keep a photo copy of [Plaintiff]’s state identification card. [Plaintiff] refused to allow her ID to be copied, but allowed [Doctor] to look at her ID to ensure that it was she that appeared for the exam. [Doctor] refused to exam Plaintiff without photo copying the ID. [Plaintiff] phoned her attorney’s office and counsel advised that she present her ID, but need not allow it to be copied, for reasons of identity theft prevention. [Doctor] still refused to examine Plaintiff. Defendant then improperly discontinued benefits and this lawsuit ensued. Plaintiff’s counsel is aware of numerous exams conducted by [Doctor] where copying of identification was not required. Plaintiff complied 100% with ABC Insurance Company’s request to attend the exam with [Doctor]. The doctor’s unreasonable request is the only reason the exam was not conducted.

Defendant now seeks to have Plaintiff examined by two medical examiners, [Doctor 2], an orthopedic doctor and [Doctor 3], a neurologist. Defendant also requests that Plaintiff submit to an EMG, a painful and invasive test. Plaintiff has agreed with Defendant to attend a single IME, with appropriate stipulations (which have previously been worked out), however Defendant is not entitled to duplicative, unnecessary, invasive and painful testing or multiple defense medical...