The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring her to attend three independent medical examinations, re-attend discovery, and restricting her counsel from communicating with defence experts.
The defendants cross-appealed the denial of a pleading amendment alleging the plaintiff was a 'sophisticated litigant' who might exaggerate her claims.
The Superior Court upheld the denial of the pleading amendment, the discovery re-attendance, and the neuropsychological examination.
However, the court set aside the orders for orthopedic and vocational assessments due to insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction for the Associate Judge to order an assessment by a non-health practitioner.
The restriction on counsel communicating with defence experts was upheld but varied to expire once the expert report is completed.
