O'Neil Wallace & Doyle, PC

IME Conditions may Include Video Recording

CASE INFORMATION

Name: Schaumann- Beltran v. Gemmete

Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court – Order on Application for Leave to Appeal.

Issued: May 13, 2022

INTRODUCTION

The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the matter of Schaumann- Beltran v. Gemmete, holding that under MCR 2.311(A), trial courts have the discretionary authority to direct that a physical or mental examination be videorecorded. The Court of Appeals previously construed the language of MCR 2.311(A), which provides that an attorney "may be present at the examination", as a grant of power to a trial court which may only be exercised in the manner stated, which is an in-person presence at the examination. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the language of the last sentence does nothing to limit a trial courts authority to establish other "conditions" of an examination. As a result, it is apparent trial courts have the discretionary authority to require an examination be videorecorded as a condition of the examination. However, in the case at issue the Court of Appeals did not consider whether requiring such a condition was an abuse of discretion based on the particular facts of the case and the Supreme Court remanded the case to address that argument.

APPLICATION

The holding of this case will likely have a negative effect on Independent Medical Examinations ("IME). Many examiners will refuse their services if they are required to record the examination. As the Supreme Court noted in their opinion, many physicians already object to performing an examination in the presence of an attorney. For example, neuropsychologists have specific technics that are confidential work product, and they will not perform testing in the presence of an attorney, and so they would certainly object to a videorecording. If more physicians refuse to offer their services due to this condition, it could very well be an enormous hindrance to timely and effectively litigating injury cases in Michigan.

Additionally, as a result of the opinion, the Trial Court has the apparent discretionary authority to impose whatever conditions on that examination that the Court finds reasonable based on the facts of a particular case. The Supreme Court suggests that the trial court has the discretionary authority to approve any conditions they determine are appropriate under the circumstances, which creates much uncertainty as to what conditions future courts may impose on examinations.

However, there may be some hope for solace from this predicament as the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide whether the facts of the case warranted a videorecorded examination. Further observation of the development related to this discretionary authority will be necessary to determine was conditions are, or are not, reasonable. The decision of the Court of appeals in this matter on remand may provide further clarification on this issue. Therefore, we must be alert and diligent in observing the outcomes of these future decisions.

 

  • Name: Andary v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company et. al. Court: Michgian Court of Appeals Issued: August 25, 2022 INTRODUCTION The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Andary v....
    Published: 8/29/2022
  • MICHIGAN NO-FAULT UPDATE: CLAIMS HANDLING AFTER AN IME Name: RAMIREZ C. HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY Court/Judge: Michigan Court of Appeals, unpublished Per Curiam Opinion of Judge Boonstra, Judge...
    Published: 3/14/2022
  • Premises Liability Update: The Uncertain Future of Lugo CASE INFORMATION Name: AHLAM KANDIL-ELSAYED v. F&E OIL, INC. Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court – Order on Application for Leave to...
    Published: 2/9/2022
  • THE RECREATIONAL LAND USE ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO MAN-MADE CHANGES TO LAND CASE INFORMATION Name: DOREEN ROTT v. ARTHUR ROTT Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court – Opinion by Justice WELCH and...
    Published: 8/28/2021
  • PREMISES LIABILIY: NO STATUTORY CLAIMS FOR NON LESSEES CASE INFORMATION Name: Walker v. Hela Mgmt, LLC Court/ Judges: Michigan Court of Appeals –Unpublished Per Curium Opinion by Judges...
    Published: 8/28/2021
  • Open and Obvious Hazards While Entering the Workplace may be Effectively Unavoidable CASE INFORMATION Name: ESTATE OF DONNA LIVINGS v SAGE'S INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC Court/ Judge: Michigan Supreme...
    Published: 7/9/2021
  • PIP Update: Supreme Court Sets Limitations on Insurer's Remedy of Rescission for Post-Application Fraud CASE INFORMATION Name: Meemic Ins. Co. v. Fortson et al. Court/Judge: Michigan Supreme Court...
    Published: 9/18/2020
  • Replacement Cost Does Not Include the Diminution in Value for PPI Claims under the No Fault Act CASE INFORMATION Name: JF Warren, LLC et al. v. Consolidated Ins. Co. , Docket No. 347762 Court/Judge:...
    Published: 7/30/2020
  • No Business Interruption Coverage During COVID-19 Shutdowns CASE INFORMATION Name: Gavrilides Management Co. v Michigan Insurance Co. , Docket No. 20-000258-CB Court/Judge: 30 th Circuit Court,...
    Published: 7/30/2020
  • Michigan Updates to Commerical General Liability Coverage "Accident" is expanded to encompass the insured's work damaged by a subcontractor CASE INFORMATION Name: Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P....
    Published: 7/24/2020
  • Tobin Dust joins O'Neill, Wallace & Doyle, P.C. We are pleased to announce that Tobin Dust of Dust & Campbell, P.C., will be joining our firm effective November 1, 2019. The move will provide...
    Published: 9/26/2019
  • THE GOOD AND THE BAD… AS WE SEE IT FOR THE 2019 AMENDMENT TO THE MICHIGAN NO-FAULT ACT INTRODUCTION The newly amended No-Fault Act made significant changes to Michigan auto-insurance requirements....
    Published: 7/31/2019
  • Negligence (Minors) Update-- " Child's Play ": Court of Appeals Upholds the Reasonable 13-year-old Standard Set Forth in Ray v. Swager. Abuaita v Abuaita Introduction In a negligence action,minors...
    Published: 6/13/2019
  • Premises Liability Update--Court of Appeals Expands Defenses for Landlords to Statutory Slip-and-Fall Claims Y ork v Berger Realty Group, Inc. Introduction The Open and Obvious Doctrine is not a...
    Published: 6/13/2019
  • No-Fault Update—Mayor of Detroit Pursues Action to Declare the Michigan No-Fault Act Unconstitutional Duggan v. McPharlin Introduction Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan filed an action to have the...
    Published: 4/26/2019
  • No-Fault Update--The Michigan Court of Appeals Reviews Voluntary Payments of an Insurer as Admissions of an Injury Ross v Dyment , Dkt. No. 341273 (Mich Ct. App. March 14, 2019) Introduction...
    Published: 4/18/2019
  • No-Fault Update—The Michigan Court of Appeals Reviews Balance Bills and Fraud in Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") Claims The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued two opinions impacting...
    Published: 3/15/2019