From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ponce v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 1984
100 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Summary

In Ponce v Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York (100 AD2d 963 [2d Dept 1984), the Court held that it was proper for plaintiff to submit to independent medical examinations in the presence of her attorney or other legal representative as long as the representative did not interfere with the conduct of the examination.

Summary of this case from Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.

Opinion

April 30, 1984


In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated May 31, 1983, as, (1) upon the motion of defendants Flatbush Medical Group, Lev and Solome, directed Marta Ponce to submit to a psychiatric examination by a physician designated by said defendants, and (2) upon the cross motion of defendants Anesthesiology Associates and Abel, directed Marta Ponce to submit to a neurological examination by a physician designated by said defendants. ¶ Order, insofar as it directed Marta Ponce to submit to a psychiatric examination by a physician designated by defendants Flatbush Medical Group, Lev and Solome, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. ¶ Order, insofar as it directed Marta Ponce to submit to a neurological examination by a physician designated by defendants Anesthesiology Associates and Abel, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that the attorneys for said defendants personally pay plaintiffs the sum of $1,500 within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. In the event the condition is not complied with, then the order is reversed, insofar as it permitted said neurological examination, with costs, and that part of the motion of defendants Anesthesiology Associates and Abel is denied. ¶ The examinations shall proceed at times and places to be fixed in written notices of not less than 10 days, to be given by the respective groups of defendants, or at such other times and places as the parties may agree. The examinations shall be completed within 45 days after service upon respondents of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. ¶ Under the circumstances of this case, including the magnitude of the injuries claimed and the failure of plaintiffs to demonstrate prejudice, Special Term properly directed the examinations at issue. However, in light of the defaults of defendants Abel and Anesthesiology Associates, their examination of Marta Ponce should have been conditioned on the payment by their attorneys of $1,500. ¶ Marta Ponce is entitled to be examined in the presence of her attorney or other legal representative, as well as an interpreter, if necessary, so long as they do not interfere with the conduct of the examinations (see Jakubowski v Lengen, 86 A.D.2d 398; see, also, Matter of Alexander L., 60 N.Y.2d 329, 332); we warn respondents and their physicians against repeating their earlier attempt to exclude them. Lazer, J.P., Niehoff, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ponce v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 1984
100 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

In Ponce v Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York (100 AD2d 963 [2d Dept 1984), the Court held that it was proper for plaintiff to submit to independent medical examinations in the presence of her attorney or other legal representative as long as the representative did not interfere with the conduct of the examination.

Summary of this case from Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.

In Ponce v Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York (100 AD2d 963 [1984]), the Second Department held that plaintiff, who was directed to submit to psychiatric and neurological examination by experts designated by defendants, was entitled to be examined in the presence of her attorney or other legal representative, as well as an interpreter, so long as they did not interfere with the conduct of the examinations.

Summary of this case from Suarez v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc.
Case details for

Ponce v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York

Case Details

Full title:LUIS M. PONCE, as Conservator of LUIS PONCE, et al., Appellants, v. HEALTH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 30, 1984

Citations

100 A.D.2d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Suarez v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc.

Nothing in plaintiff's motion papers, or on this record, suggest that special and unusual circumstances exist…

Parsons v. Hytech Tool Die, Inc.

The court abused its discretion, however, in requiring plaintiff to submit to the examination outside the…