The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend two Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) with a neuropsychologist and an orthopaedic surgeon, arguing that the plaintiff's alleged injuries (physical and brain injury) required assessment by distinct specialists.
The plaintiff opposed, citing timeliness and the sufficiency of a single IME, and sought conditions on the examinations, including pre-approval of questionnaires and a prohibition on ghostwriting.
The court granted leave for the motion, finding a substantial change in circumstances and that it was in the interests of justice.
The court ordered the plaintiff to attend both IMEs, with the neuropsychological assessment contingent on the plaintiff first obtaining her own report.
The court rejected the plaintiff's demands regarding questionnaires and ghostwriting, affirming the statutory obligation to answer relevant questions and the expert's right to choose their method.
However, the court denied the defendants' request for reimbursement of a cancellation fee for a missed IME, as no prior court order or written consent for that specific examination existed.