The physician of the party to be examined may be present at the examination. Unless the parties agree, or the court for good cause shown determines otherwise, the examination shall be in the county where the person to be examined, or his physician, resides. Special consideration shall be given to the convenience of the person to be examined and that of his physician in setting the time and place of the examination, and reasonable consideration shall be given to the convenience of the examining physician. Upon reasonable objection to the physician designated to make the examination, and if the parties shall fail to agree as to who shall make the examination, the court may designate a physician; but the fact that a physician was so designated shall not be admissible upon the trial.
S.C. R. Civ. P. 35
The language in the first paragraph reflects the existing Federal Rule on the subject, except the $100,000 limitation. The language changes are minor and only to clarify the operation of the rule. The second paragraph is new and is not in the Federal Rule. It establishes limitations on the use of the device, particularly that the party examined may have his physician present during the examination and that the examination may take place only in the county of residence of the patient or his physician. The new material also permits objection to be made to the examining physician.
Notes to 1986 Amendment:
The Rule as originally written imposed some absolute restrictions on the location and timing of a medical examination. The amendments give the court discretion to make exceptions to those requirements if justified by the facts.
This is the language of the current Federal Rule 35(b) and authorizes the party examined to request a copy of the report of the examination ordered by the court. Upon delivery the party who obtained the order for the physical examination may obtain from the examined party, copies of all of its reports on the same subject. Conceivably that party could obtain the same information by deposing the physicians who made other examinations, but it certainly is easier and more efficient to provide for the automatic exchange of medical reports on the same condition. The purpose of the rule is to encourage settlement when it is apparent that there is no significant difference in the medical opinion of the respective experts.