First, we all know that physical and mental examinations are often used in personal injury cases. In some cases the physical or mental condition of a party can be very important in establishing the personal liability of the defendant or in determining the extent of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. I will later provide you an example of a small fact pattern, based on the information that was provided in our textbook, but let me first start by giving you some details, your supervising attorney has requested a physical examination to determine if Mr. Gleason is nearsighted and whether he has difficulty seeing in bright sunshine.
However, because your supervising attorney has alleged that Mr. Gleason failure to wear his glasses contributed to the accident, and because Mr. Gleason has stated that his eyesight is quite good, an eye examination would be in order. Moreover, Mr. Waldman, Mr. Gleason’s attorney, has asked Ms. Emerson to undergo a physical examination to determine whether her injuries are as serious as she claims. Now the reasons for allowing physical and mental examinations is because the law allows physical and mental examinations to establish the truth about the plaintiff’s allegation of physical or mental injuries.
For example, In the Emerson Case, if Ms. Emerson says that she has a sprained wrist as a result to the accident, the defendant may demand a physical examination to determine the validity of this claim. In fact, the very existence of the rule deters the filing of fraudulent or exaggerated in the first place. Some examinations may also reveal inconsistencies between a plaintiff’s complaints and the real nature of injury. In the Emerson case, for instance, Ms. Emerson may claim of severe back pain. A physical examination could determine whether the pain is imaginary or is caused by a real injury.
Now let’s take a look at the small fact pattern that I created down below. The Emerson Case On May 23, 2013 a young woman named Betty Emerson, an Ohio resident, who was in Vermont for a company picnic, when she sustained her injuries in a bad accident. Ms. Emerson was driving a golf cart in a relay race at the Greystone Country Club in Vermont, when she collided with a riding lawn mower driven by Donald Gleason, the groundskeeper at Greystone and one of the defendants in the lawsuit. As expected, Mr. Gleason’s attorney has demanded that Ms.
Emerson undergo a medical examination. Your supervising attorney is convicted that Gleason’s attorney, Samuel Waldman, will argue that Ms. Emerson’s version of the accident, your supervising attorney has concluded Mr. Gleason was not wearing his glasses the afternoon of the unfortunate accident, something that would help solidify your attorney’s case against him. Your supervising attorney wants you to cooperate with Attorney Waldman in arranging Ms. Emerson’s examination. On the other side of the ledger, she also want you to arrange for an eye examination for Mr. Gleason.