Rule 35 IMEs Under Attack
Strong & Hanni is currently involved in resisting attempts by the Plaintiffs’ Bar to dilute the value and effect of Rule 35 medical examinations.
In recent months, the Plaintiffs’ Bar approached the Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee for the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure with proposed amendments that would impair the ability of defendants to defend themselves through the use of Rule 35 medical examinations. Historically, civil defendants in personal injury actions have been permitted to obtain medical evaluations performed by a physician or care provider of their choosing. Over the course of several years, the Plaintiffs’ Bar in the State of Utah has waged a campaign in part to discourage physicians from participating in such examinations and to impose limitations on such examinations that render such examinations less effective.
Stephen J. Trayner of Strong & Hanni and two other members of the Utah Defense Lawyers Association (“UDLA”) have been appointed by the UDLA Board to serve as spokespersons for the Defense Bar before the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules. Currently before the Committee is a proposal that would require such medical examinations to be recorded, either through the use of video or audio tape. The proposed amendments also would require many medical examiners to provide copies of all prior defense related examination reports for a period of four (4) years. Production of such reports would be at the expense of the defense lawyer or defendant retaining that physician or care provider to perform a Rule 35 examination. In recent days, Plaintiffs Bar has also suggested that they will be seeking further modifications and limitations to the scope and nature of a defendant’s right to use Rule 35 examinations.
During the pendency of personal injury actions, defense lawyers frequently need to retain the services of physicians, neuropsychologists, psychologists, physical therapists, and other health care providers to conduct Rule 35 examinations. Strong & Hanni is playing an active role in preventing any further dilution of a defendant’s right to a Rule 35 examination.
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the Utah Supreme Court this fall on any amendments to Rule 35 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Summary provided by Stephen J. Trayner
In recent months, the Plaintiffs’ Bar approached the Utah Supreme Court Advisory Committee for the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure with proposed amendments that would impair the ability of defendants to defend themselves through the use of Rule 35 medical examinations. Historically, civil defendants in personal injury actions have been permitted to obtain medical evaluations performed by a physician or care provider of their choosing. Over the course of several years, the Plaintiffs’ Bar in the State of Utah has waged a campaign in part to discourage physicians from participating in such examinations and to impose limitations on such examinations that render such examinations less effective.
Stephen J. Trayner of Strong & Hanni and two other members of the Utah Defense Lawyers Association (“UDLA”) have been appointed by the UDLA Board to serve as spokespersons for the Defense Bar before the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Rules. Currently before the Committee is a proposal that would require such medical examinations to be recorded, either through the use of video or audio tape. The proposed amendments also would require many medical examiners to provide copies of all prior defense related examination reports for a period of four (4) years. Production of such reports would be at the expense of the defense lawyer or defendant retaining that physician or care provider to perform a Rule 35 examination. In recent days, Plaintiffs Bar has also suggested that they will be seeking further modifications and limitations to the scope and nature of a defendant’s right to use Rule 35 examinations.
During the pendency of personal injury actions, defense lawyers frequently need to retain the services of physicians, neuropsychologists, psychologists, physical therapists, and other health care providers to conduct Rule 35 examinations. Strong & Hanni is playing an active role in preventing any further dilution of a defendant’s right to a Rule 35 examination.
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the Utah Supreme Court this fall on any amendments to Rule 35 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Summary provided by Stephen J. Trayner
