A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's decision denying a defendant's request for an additional independent medical examination (IME) in a personal injury case. This ruling affects how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the number of medical examinations a plaintiff may be required to undergo.
The case, Siepel v. Krywak (Docket No. 2025-05368), centers around Adam Siepel, the plaintiff, who claims he sustained serious injuries after being struck by a vehicle driven by Daniel Krywak, the defendant. Siepel alleges he suffered multiple bone fractures and other injuries as a result of the accident. This case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after Krywak appealed a decision made by the Supreme Court in Suffolk County.
The dispute began when Siepel submitted to an initial IME conducted by an orthopedic surgeon. Following this examination, Krywak sought to compel Siepel to undergo a second IME, claiming that Siepel's attorney had interfered with the first examination by advising him not to complete an intake form. Krywak argued that the second examination was necessary for a thorough evaluation of Siepel's injuries.
On April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court denied Krywak's motion, leading to the appeal. The court ruled that Krywak did not demonstrate the necessity for a second examination. The appellate court, which included Judges Francesca E. Connolly, Linda Christopher, Lillian Wan, and Susan Quirk, affirmed the lower court's decision.
The court stated, "the defendant failed to establish that a second physical examination of the plaintiff was necessary." The ruling emphasized that while CPLR 3121(a) allows for physical examinations when a party's physical condition is in question, it does not limit the number of examinations. However, the defendant must prove that a further examination is needed.
The judges pointed out that the orthopedic surgeon who conducted the initial IME had already reviewed Siepel's medical history and injuries. The report from the surgeon did not indicate that another examination was required for an informed opinion. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision was not an abuse of discretion.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards for requesting additional medical examinations in personal injury cases. It reinforces the idea that defendants must provide a valid reason for needing further examinations, rather than simply requesting them without justification. This could potentially limit the number of times plaintiffs are subjected to medical evaluations, which can be intrusive and stressful.
Going forward, this decision may influence similar cases, as it sets a precedent regarding the necessity of medical examinations in personal injury claims. Defendants in future cases will need to carefully consider their reasons for requesting additional examinations, ensuring they can substantiate their claims of necessity.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Krywak plans to appeal this decision further. It remains unclear if there are any related cases pending that could affect the outcome or interpretation of this ruling.