9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 305a
Insurance — Discovery — Compulsory examination of persons — Conditions for examination set
RONDA NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, BRIAN BALAGUERA, MISAEL BALAGUERA, and EILEEN BALAGUERA, Defendants. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. CA 01-06076 AB. January 9, 2002. Jorge Labarga, Judge. Counsel: Michael S. Bendell, Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Jack Nieland, Law Office of Lawrence Signori, West Palm Beach. Sean Spellacy, Green, Murphy, Wilke Murphy & Spellacy, PA, Boca Raton.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO CONDITIONSOF COMPULSORY DEFENSE EXAMINATION
This matter came before the court on Plaintiff’s objection to conditions of a compulsory exams under rule 1.360, and after argument of counsel, it is adjudged that:
1. Examiner may not take a history, written or oral, about:
Facts and circumstances of who was at fault; who referred Plaintiff to any doctor; prior accident’s; prior work history; what Plaintiff told police, ambulance drivers, hospital personnel, and doctors; when Plaintiff 1st complained; what Plaintiff told any particular doctor; and when Plaintiff saw a doctor and the like.
3. Plaintiff is not required to bring any x-ray films, MRI scans, CAT scans, or other films as requested by the original notice.
4. Plaintiff’s attorney, spouse, or other plaintiff’s representative may attend the exam. See Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Defense attorney is not permitted to attend the examination.
5. A court reporter may attend the examination and/or may videotape the exam. See Stakley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 547 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
6. The defense doctor shall not be identified as “independent,” “appointed by the Court,” “IME,” or the like. See Rule 1.360(c).
7. Within a reasonable period of time, so plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to depose examining doctor, after receipt and review of the report, the examining doctor shall prepare a detailed written report setting out all of his findings, including results of all tests made, diagnosis and conclusions. Rule 1.360(b)(1).
8. As to Plaintiff’s objection that “there are 2 insurers (Allstate and State Farm) defending multiple parties. Each attorney, or each party or each insurer is not entitled to a separate examining doctor, etc:” such objection is currently moot or not ripe, because Allstate has tendered its alleged policy limits, and has not requested exams.
9. Defense shall not set any depositions or hearings so as to preclude plaintiff’s attorney from attending the exam.
10. The exam shall take place in the county where the lawsuit is to be tried.
11. The conditions apply to the exam as currently set for the date and time set by original notice or such other date and time as reasonably re-set.
12. Plaintiff has leave to serve interrogatories permitted by Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 24 FLW S 187 (Fla. 1999) approving Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 705 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and Springer v. West, 25 FLW 2166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (approving Boecher).
14. Defense is responsible for notifying the examining doctor of the terms of the order enter on this objection.
EXAMINER
This order applies to examiners:
1. Reda Abdel Fattah BDS Monday, January 21, 2002 @ 10:30 am
Dental exam
2. Bruce Berkowitz MD Friday, January 25, 2002 @ 1:30
Orthopedic exam
* * *
