Summary
This Appellate Division, First Department decision reviews a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute over medical examinations in a personal injury action. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the defendants' cross-motion to compel a second orthopedic examination, holding that the defendants failed to demonstrate the necessary change in circumstances or need required under CPLR 3121. The ruling emphasizes that while there is no statutory limit on physical examinations, parties must justify additional requests based on new injuries or prior examiner unavailability.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to preclude and denying the defendants' cross‑motion for a second orthopedic examination under CPLR 3121.
Holdings
- The appellate court affirmed that the trial court properly exercised its discretion; the motion to preclude was granted and the cross‑motion denied because the defendants failed to demonstrate the necessity of a further examination.
Key quotations
“While CPLR 3121 does not limit the number of examinations to which a party may be subjected, a party seeking a further examination must demonstrate the necessity for it.”
Factual background
The plaintiff, Anthony Tedesco, sustained injuries for which a first orthopedic examination was ordered. Defendants sought a second orthopedic examination, arguing the need for further evaluation. The trial court found that the plaintiff's injuries were fully known at the time of the first examination and that no change in circumstances justified a second exam.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Bronx County entered an order on or about March 11, 2024 granting the plaintiff's motion to preclude defendants' request for a second orthopedic examination and denying the defendants' cross‑motion to compel the plaintiff to appear for such an examination. The appellants appealed that order to the Appellate Division, First Department.