Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-01008/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-01008-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID LARRY NELSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 2:03cv1008-MHT

RICHARD F. ALLEN and ) (WO)

GRANTT CULLIVER, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

 It is ORDERED that defendants’ motions to reconsider

allowing physician consultants to attend physical

examination performed by court’s independent expert (doc.

nos. 90 & 103) are denied for the following reasons:

In the typical case, this court, generally, would

allow one party’s medical expert to attend an examination

by the other party’s medical expert, for this would allow

the attending expert first-hand knowledge of what

occurred at the examination. See, e.g., Vreeland v.

Ethan Allen, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 551 (S.D. N.Y. 1993)

(plaintiff's attorney allowed to be present at her

Case 2:03-cv-01008-MHT-WC Document 106 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 3
2

psychological examination, since his presence as an

observer can be useful in preparing for

cross-examination); Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So.2d 1378,

1379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) (“absent any valid reason

to prohibit the presence of a patient's counsel or other

representative, their presence should be allowed”).

However, if such attendance would significantly interfere

with the examination, the court would disallow it. See

e.g. Tirado v. Erosa, 158 F.R.D. 294 (S.D. N.Y. 1994)

(plaintiff was not entitled to have her attorney and

stenographer present at her examination by the

defendant's psychiatric expert, where the expert

indicated that the presence of third parties would be

likely to interfere with the examination).

 This court knows no reason to treat this deathpenalty case any differently from the typical case.

Therefore, because the defendants have not shown that the

presence of the plaintiff’s physician consultant would

interfere in any way with the court expert’s task, and

Case 2:03-cv-01008-MHT-WC Document 106 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 3
because the court’s special master, David Boyd, does not

think it will either, the court can think of no reason to

disallow the attendance of the plaintiff’s physician

consultant. Of course, the plaintiff’s physician

consultant is not to ask questions or participate in any

way; he is to observe only.

DONE, this the 10th day of October, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:03-cv-01008-MHT-WC Document 106 Filed 10/10/06 Page 3 of 3