The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a physiatrist and permitting the resulting expert report to be served after the pre-trial conference.
The plaintiff opposed the request on the basis that it constituted a second medical examination and argued the defendants had not established its necessity.
The court held that the plaintiff’s physiatrist report introduced issues concerning mood, anxiety, and cognitive symptoms that were outside the expertise of the defendants’ orthopaedic surgeon who had previously examined the plaintiff.
Given the differing medical specialties and the need to respond to new issues raised in the plaintiff’s expert evidence, the court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the additional examination.
The plaintiff was ordered to attend the defendants’ physiatrist examination and the expert report was permitted to be served after the pre-trial.
