Pendergast v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1997
• Citation: 244 A.D.2d 868,665 N.Y.S.2d 132
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 9944 Thomas P. PENDERGAST, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, a/k/a Conrail, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 132

665 N.Y.S.2d 132

244 A.D.2d 868, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 9944

Thomas P. PENDERGAST, Respondent, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, a/k/a Conrail, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Nov. 19, 1997.

Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods &Goodyear by Gregg Maxwell,Buffalo, for Defendant-Appellant.

Paul William Beltz, P.C. by Steve Foley, Buffalo, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Before PINE, J.P., and LAWTON, HAYES, CALLAHAN and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court properly denied that portion of defendant's motion seeking to compel a physical examination of plaintiff and properly granted that portion of plaintiff's motion seeking a protective order with respect to the physical examination of plaintiff. Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action in 1992. In December 1993, plaintiff's counsel served a notice fixing the time and place for a physical examination of plaintiff. Thereafter, at defendant's request, plaintiff submitted to a physical examination by a neurologist. He appeared for a second physical examination on February 9, 1994, but the physician selected by defendant aborted the examination, objecting to the presence of a nurse representative of plaintiff's counsel. Defendant did not move to compel further examinations until July 1996, following the filing of the note of issue in June 1996.

The right to the presence of a legal representative at a physical examination is well established; "[a]part from questions of modesty, there is good ground for a party's insisting that his or her doctor or attorney be present at the examination. The information about the way the examination was conducted may be helpful on cross-examination. Moreover, the practice reduces the possibility of misleading medical reports" (6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. p 3121.07, at 31-566). A timely request for re-examination, under appropriate circumstances, would have been permissible (see, Jakubowski v. Lengen, 86 A.D.2d 398, 450 N.Y.S.2d 612). However, defendant waited 2 1/2 years after the aborted examination to move to compel further examination, and did not bring that motion until after the note of issue had been filed. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court did not err with respect to the physical examination of plaintiff.

The court erred, however, in denying that portion of defendant's motion seeking a psychiatric examination of plaintiff. Defense counsel did not have notice of plaintiff's alleged...