Casali v. Phillips

145 A.D.2d 941, 536 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 23, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 941 (Casali v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casali v. Phillips, 145 A.D.2d 941, 536 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: In the subject case, plaintiff failed to show any special circumstances warranting the presence of a stenographer at a physical examination to be conducted by defendant’s doctor.

The purpose of a physical examination of a party is to [942]*942narrow the areas of medical dispute through the assistance of the medical profession and to eliminate much of the medical controversy in a personal injury case (Jakubowski v Lengen, 86 AD2d 398, 400). In Jakubowski (supra, at 401), we cautioned against further representation at the examination, noting that the examining room should not "be turned into a hearing room with lawyers and stenographers from both sides participating.”

The sole claim here is that subsequent to a physical examination in another case also involving plaintiffs attorney, the same physician selected by defendant in this case went beyond the purposes of the discovery proceeding and forwarded a letter regarding his opinion to another physician. The presence of a stenographer would have had no bearing upon such conduct, and other remedies exist to ensure that physicians do not violate discovery rules. Moreover, where valid reasons exist, a party may object to the physician designated by defendant and seek to have defendant select another doctor to conduct the examination (see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 107 AD2d 292, 295; Shapiro v Shapiro, 89 AD2d 538; Miocic v Winters, 75 AD2d 887; Jackson v Cocea, 27 AD2d 700). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.— discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pettway v. Ogbonna
261 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Whipple v. Myers
234 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, Inc.
227 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Miller v. Holtz House of Vehicles, Inc.
152 Misc. 2d 727 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
Kosanovich v. Greca
161 A.D.2d 1157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Hagmeier v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
154 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Mertz v. Bradford
152 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 A.D.2d 941, 536 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casali-v-phillips-nyappdiv-1988.