The Louisiana Supreme Court recently wrote a per curium opinion, affirming a defendant may have a plaintiff submit to multiple additional medical exams from different specialists.

Hunt v. Johnson – Background

In Hunt v. Johnson, the plaintiff alleged he sustained injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was treated by an interventional pain doctor and a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon recommended that the plaintiff undergo a cervical surgery.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff undergo two additional medical examinations, one by an interventional pain doctor and the other by a neurosurgeon. The plaintiff consented to the additional medical exam with the interventional pain doctor but objected to the additional medical exam by the neurosurgeon.

The defendants filed a motion to compel, which was denied at the trial court and appellate level. The defendants then applied for supervisory writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Louisiana Supreme Court Decision

The Louisiana Supreme Court, citing Hicks v. USAA, stated a basic premise of our system of justice is that both sides of a dispute stand on equal footing and that the discovery rules are meant to aid in the search for truth.

Under La. C.C.P. art. 1464, an order requiring a plaintiff to submit to an additional medical exam must be based on good cause with the moving party showing a reasonable nexus between the requested exam and condition in controversy. Citing Greco v. Paternostro, the court stated that courts have permitted additional medical examinations “when the additional medical information has been shown reasonably necessary for the defendants to prepare to defend the case, and the request is not oppressive to plaintiff.”

In Hunt v. Johnson, the Court noted that the plaintiff had treated with both an interventional pain doctor and a neurosurgeon who had recommended surgery. The Court noted that the defendants had requested both exams prior to either of the plaintiff’s exams occurring. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants were trying to get a “second bite at the apple” with a second additional medical exam.

The Court found that the defendants demonstrated good cause for the second additional medical exam by the neurosurgeon, granted defendants motion to compel, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Takeaway

Hunt v. Johnson bolsters prior decisions from the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hicks v. USAA and Augustine v. Safeco, making it clear that a defendant is entitled to have a plaintiff undergo multiple additional medical exams as long as the defendant can show good cause and the requests are not oppressive to plaintiff.