Court permitted insurer to compel plaintiff to undergo a second IME where good cause was shown.

The Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas considered a motion to compel the plaintiff to undergo a second IME. This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a claim against the third party tortfeasor and underinsured motorist carrier. The court reasoned that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010 does not permit or prohibit more than one exam; however, the defendant must demonstrate good cause to justify a supplemental IME. The court determined that there were exceptional circumstances and good cause to warrant a second IME, despite a stipulation between the plaintiff, tortfeasor and UIM insurer that only one IME would be conducted. The first exam related to a lumbar spine injury and did not address the subsequently claimed foot injury. The court reasoned that if the second IME were denied, the plaintiff’s development of post-traumatic arthritis would be advanced as uncontested. The defendants were unaware of this foot injury at the time of the first IME. Thus, exceptional circumstances existed, and a second IME was appropriate.

Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013