The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

A northeast Pennsylvnaia trial court recently issued an Order relating to a motion to compel a Plaintiff to undergo a second IME in a case involving a car accident resulting in a third party and underinsured motorist claim. The trial court decided the issue and motion in the third party case but also received input from the underinsured motorist carrier. In Mehall v. Benedetto, No. 2009 CIV 5849 (C.P. Lackawanna Aug. 9, 2012).

Judge Mazzoni finds that there are exceptional circumstances and good cause under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010 and case law to warrant a second IME despite a stipulation between the plaintiff, tortfeasor and UIM insurer that only one IME would be conducted for the plaintiff's lumbar injury. The main reason the court allows the second exam is because the first IME related to a lumbar spine injury and there was no allegations of a foot injury. Thus, the court reasoned that there is a need for the second exam in order to make sure that there is no allegation that the claims for the foot injury go uncontested or unopposed at any trial unless warranted.

If you would like a copy of the Order it can be obtained by directly contacting Scott Cooper or feel free to contact Central Pennsylvania based Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers in Harrisburg and Camp Hill.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest