Motion for Medical Examination of the Plaintiff

Georgia Motion for Medical Examination.doc



DAVID A. DOE,                        )


Plaintiff,                        )        CIVIL ACTION


vs.                                          )        NO. 99VS 159570 J


MT. SINAI TOWERS                         )



DOOR CONTROLS, INC.,                        )


Defendants.                        )        


NOW COMES the defendant Mt. Sinai Towers' Condominium Associates (“Mt. Sinai Towers”) and hereby files a Motion for Examination of the Plaintiff.

On January 11, 2001, the defendants took the discovery deposition of an individual identified by the plaintiff as his gerontologist expert.  This was Robert Doe, M.D.  A copy of his deposition is on file with the court.  During that deposition, Dr. Doe testified that he had never examined the plaintiff, David DOE.  All opinion testimony offered by Dr. Doe was rendered from only a cursory review of the medical records and, more largely, from discussions he had with the plaintiff’s lawyers.  See deposition of Dr. Doe, at pp. 8, 83, 34-35, 23.

As defendants prepared for trial with their own medical expert, they were under the impression that David DOE had not been examined by anybody who was going to testify in this case as a medical professional since May, 2000.

On Tuesday, October 9, 2001, counsel for Mt. Sinai Towers asked plaintiff’s attorney for a second time if plaintiff’s attorneys would let the defense medical expert, Sheldon Margulies, M.D., examine David DOE.  Defendants had initially asked the plaintiff’s attorney if Dr. Sheldon Margulies could examine the plaintiff on December 12, 2000, during the plaintiff’s discovery deposition of Dr. Margulies.  See deposition of Sheldon Margulies, M.D., taken December 12, 2000, at pp. 42-43.  Plaintiff’s attorney responded that he would take the matter under consideration.  Plaintiff’s attorney never did respond to the defense’s request to examine plaintiff, David DOE.

On October 9, 2001, the attorneys for all parties met to go through exhibits each party intended to introduce during the trial per the court’s order.  During that meeting, counsel for the plaintiff advised the defense for the first time that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Robert Doe, had in fact examined the plaintiff David DOE only the week before (the week of October 1, 2001).  When the defense renewed its request to have Dr. Margulies examine the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorneys responded that they would not permit such an examination.  

        Argument and Citation of Authority

        O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-35 permits an examination of a party, as most especially where that party has put into evidence his physical and/or mental condition.  If ever there was a case where the plaintiff put his physical and mental condition into evidence, it would be this one.  Plaintiff contends that as a result of a single fall back in June, 1999, despite many other falls, this particular fall caused him to sustain permanent and long-standing and worsening physical and cognitive deterioration.  Case law makes clear that once the plaintiff has put such issues into evidence, a request for examination within the discretion of the court should be routinely granted.  Crider v. Sneider, 243 Ga. 642 (1979).  The only matter that courts might look to as a basis for denying such a request is where the requesting party is able to obtain identical or similar information by another means.  Prevost v. Taylor, 196 Ga. App. 368 (1990).  In this case, obtaining the information needed is impossible unless it is obtained through examination.  The fact of the matter is that plaintiff’s expert has examined the plaintiff only one week ago, yet now the plaintiff’s attorneys tell us that it is too late for the defense to perform an examination of the plaintiff.  The defense believes that either Dr. Doe’s testimony should be excluded insofar as it is based on any examination of the plaintiff David DOE, or the defense expert should be permitted to examine David DOE as well.  


        For all of the reasons cited above, Mt. Sinai Towers respectfully requests that this court permit its expert medical doctor, a neurologist, Sheldon Margulies, M.D. to examine the plaintiff at the place where the plaintiff now resides, Beverly Healthcare (a nursing home in Sandy Springs, Georgia).  


Attorneys for Mt. Sinai Towers


This is to certify that I have this day served the foregoing MOTION FOR EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF on counsel for the parties of record by depositing a copy of same with the United States Postal Service in an envelope, with first class postage prepaid, addressed to:

David M. Zacks, Esq.

Christopher B. Lyman, Esq.

Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP

1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309-4530

William T. Casey, Jr., Esq.

Hicks Casey & Barber, P.C.

136 N. Fairground St., Suite 100

Marietta, GA 30060

James E. Singer, Esq.

Bovis, Kyle & Burch, LLC

53 Perimeter Ctr. E., Third Floor

Atlanta, GA 30346-2298

This ______  day of October, 2001.        


William Allred        

        -  -

Client Reviews
My wife and I were hit by a tractor trailer in 2014. After extensive research online, we were deeply impressed with the various reviews we read on Google and Avvo and chose Chris to represent us. We could not have a made a better decision. Chris and his firm treated us like we were their only clients, soothed our worries, and instantly gained our trust. Chris settled both of our cases for more than we expected. James
A co-worker of my wife recommended Chris to us. At the very beginning Chris showed that he cared and his knowledge is priceless. Going through this process can be aggravating but Chris did a great job guiding me through this and was always available to answer my questions. Chris fought to get what I deserved even though at times I wanted to give up. Tracy
I want to express my deepest sense of gratitude and appreciation to Attorney Chris Simon & Attorney Chris Carsten, for all the hard work that they put forth into my case (car accident filed after being hit by drunk driver). Their attention to detail and professionalism far surpasses their firm's reputation. Because of their diligence and dedication to their craft, they were able to bring my case to a successful close, one that I could live with. You will not find a better team for your case. Should I have a need for their services again in the future, or know of anyone looking for a top notch Auto Accident Law Firm, I would not hesitate to recommend them!!!! Elle
Wow...Chris is a very good attorney. Me and my son was in a very bad car accident an I was clueless on how to handle the situation. It's very hard to find an attorney who allows you to contact them personally instead of you contacting their asst. I was told that I didn't have a case because the hosiptal put a lien on my acct. Chris prove different and I was able to file my case with the insurance company. The process was very quickly and Im glad I selected the right attorney..Thanks Chris A Car Accident client
Chris is a great lawyer and the most people friendly attorney I have ever delt with. He handled my case with great attention to detail and did so in a very short period of time. He is very consice, efficient, patient and understanding. He has a strong passion for what he does and he does it well. I recommend Chris Simon as legal representation for anyone who has suffreed damages or a loss at the negligence of others. He really cares about you and your case. A Car Accident client