DOCKET NO: AANCV166022098S
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`ORDER 410631
`
`MCNEIL, MARILOU
` V.
`DOANE, ANNA Et Al
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA/
`MILFORD
` AT MILFORD
`
`5/14/2018
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDER REGARDING:
`04/04/2018 141.00 REQUEST FOR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAM PB 13-11(b)
`
`The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is hereby:
`
`ORDER: DENIED
`
`SUMMARY RULING ON THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR AN INDEPENDANT MEDICAL
`EXAMINATION
`
`In this request, which the court treats as a motion (see P.B. § 11-2), the defendant indicates that she has
`requested an independent medical examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has objected to this request
`on the ground that the proposed examiner has performed other such examinations on behalf of defense
`firms in such a manner or to such an extent that concerns exist about his objectivity. For the following
`reasons, the defendant’s motion is denied and the plaintiff’s objection is sustained.
`
`The disposition of the defendant’s motion is controlled by Practice Book § 13-11 (b). The dispositive
`provision of this rule states that “no plaintiff shall be compelled to undergo a physical or mental
`examination by any physician to whom he or she objects.” See also, General Statutes § 52-178a.
`
`The defendant’s request for the court to order the plaintiff to submit to an independent medical
`examination to whom she objects is expressly precluded by the plain and unambiguous language of the
`statute and rule that states that the plaintiff cannot be “compelled to undergo a physical . . . examination
`by any physician to whom [she] objects.” Id. “The plaintiff has an unconditional statutory right to object
`to ‘any physician.’ She is entitled to object for any reason, including bias or personal dislike.” Privee v.
`Burns, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 96 0395074, at 16 (June 1, 1999,
`Blue, J.)(749 A.2d 689).
`
`The defendant is not without a remedy. Id. 16-19. The defendant may proceed to offer another doctor to
`do the examination or continue to engage the plaintiff’s counsel regarding one who is acceptable. As
`explained by Judge Blue in Privee v. Burns, supra, 17-18, “there is nothing about this garden-variety
`case to suggest that numerous other orthopedic surgeons with the requisite skills cannot be found in
`[this] geographic area . . . notable for its abundance of skilled physicians.” If the plaintiff exercises her
`“power of objection to the point where, as a practical matter, the defendant is rendered unable to obtain
`an independent examination” because, for example, “the plaintiff ends up objecting to every physician in
`the book,” then the defendant has leave to seek appropriate relief. Id., 17. That point has not yet been
`reached by the plaintiff. In any event, on the present record, “the solution . . . is not to compel the
`plaintiff to submit to an examination” by a certain date as requested by the defendant. Id.
`
`AANCV166022098S 5/14/2018
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`410631
`
`Judge: BARRY STEVENS
`
`AANCV166022098S 5/14/2018
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`