You are here: / / Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior...

Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior to Trial; Court’s Permission to Record IME Is Required; Request for Another IME by a Different Doctor Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, determined: (1) a video of an independent medical exam (IME) surrepticiously made by plaintiff’s attorney should have been turned over to the defense prior to trial; (2) the court’s permission for recording an IME is required; and (3) under the unique circumstances of this case, the request for an IME by a different doctor should have been granted. The opinion is very long and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the additional IME and the IME video, the Second Department wrote:

Pursuant to CPLR 3121(a), if a plaintiff’s physical condition is in controversy, the defendant may require the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination … . There is no restriction in CPLR 3121 limiting the number of examinations to which a party may be subjected, and a subsequent examination is permissible provided the party seeking the examination demonstrates the necessity for it … . Furthermore, after a note of issue has been filed, as in this case, a defendant must demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue to justify an additional examination … .

In the present case, unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting a new IME abound. Foremost among them is Dr. Katz’s unavailability to the appellants as a witness at a retrial, due to his refusal to appear voluntarily, which, in turn, resulted from the Supreme Court’s repeated accusation that Dr. Katz “lied” or committed “perjury” at the first damages trial. These extraordinary circumstances were set in motion when the plaintiff’s attorney chose to surreptitiously videotape Dr. Katz’s second IME of the plaintiff, and chose to withhold that recording from defense counsel despite the requirements of CPLR 3101(i). * * *

… [T]he failure of plaintiff’s counsel to seek and obtain the Supreme Court’s permission to videotape the second IME was, by itself, a sufficient reason to prohibit the use of the recording at trial. Further compounding the improper conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in making the recording without procuring the court’s approval in advance was the failure to disclose the recording to defense counsel prior to trial, which was a clear violation of CPLR 3101. Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: “There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: (1) a party, or the officer, director, member, agent or employee of a party” (CPLR 3101[a] [emphasis added]). Subsection (i) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“In addition to any other matter which may be subject to disclosure, there shall be full disclosure of any films, photographs, video tapes or audio tapes, including transcripts or memoranda thereof, involving a person referred to in paragraph one of subdivision (a) of this section. There shall be disclosure of all portions of such material, including out-takes, rather than only those portions a party intends to use” (CPLR 3101[i]). Bermejo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08374, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
Waiver and Release Signed by Plaintiff When She Rented a Segway Vehicle Precluded Her Personal Injury Action Even Though the Accident Occurred During a Tour Conducted by Defendant’s Employees
WHERE THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND MUST RULE BEFORE ANY RELATED ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT AND RETURN TO INDIA WERE NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE INTERVENTION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; STRONG TW0-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to... Defendant Implicitly Consented to a Mistrial on Two of Three Counts by Requesting...