T e n n . C t. A p p . R . 1 0 p ro v id e s: 1

T h e C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , r e v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op inio n w o ul d have no prec edent i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on, i t s hal l be d esign at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE SUSAN PYKOSH , ET AL 

### . v. STE PHANIE A. EARPS, ET AL 

### .

Circuit Court

for Wilson County No. 11969 Clara W. Byrd, Judge

No. M2004- 01507-COA-R 10-CV - F iled Augu st 17, 2004

This ext raor dinary

appea l involves a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.01 request for a phy sical examination of an opposing party

. Fo l l o wi n g a vehic ular c ollisi on in Wi lson County , one of the drivers and her passeng er f

iled suit in t he Circuit Court for Wilson Count y seeking dam age s from the driver a nd o wn er s o f t he other

vehicle. I ssues involving the e x tent and permanenc y of the plaintiff driver’s injuries cause d by

this collisi on arose afte r the plaintiff driver was injured in another a ccide nt, and the def endants re quested pe rmission for t h eir medic al expert to examine the plaintiff driver . The tr ia l c ou rt de nie d th e re qu e st, a ndthe de fe nd a nts fi le d a Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 0 a

pp lic a tio n w iththi s court. We have determined that, under the fac ts of this case, the trial court’s de nial of the defe ndants’ Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.01 motion depa rts from the acc epted and usual co u rs e o f j udicial proce eding s of this so rt. Ther efor e, we g rant the Te nn. R. App. P. 10 application and re verse the order denying the Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.01 m otion. Tenn. R. App . P . 10 Extraordinary Appeal, Jud gm ent of the Circuit Court Reve rsed and Rem anded
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J

. , delivere d the op ini on of

the c ou rt

. Gary M. Kellar, B rentwood, Te nnessee , for the a ppellants, Stephanie A. Ea rps, Clarenc e Ea

rps, and Col le e n E arp s. Fr ank L annom, L ebanon, T ennesse e, for the appe llees, Susan Pykosh and Will iam Pykosh.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
This Tenn. R. A pp. P. 10 application conce rns the rig ht of the def endants in a pe rsonal injury lawsuit to have their ow n medical e x pert e x amine the plaintiff pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P . 35.01.P ur s uan t t o T enn . R. Ap p. P

. 2, we s us pend t he appl i cat i on of T enn . R. Ap p. P

. 24- 26 an d 29 , an d f i nd ora l 2

a rg u m e n t t o b e un n e c e ssa ry p u rs u a n t t o T e n n . R . A p p . P

. 3 5 ( c )

. See H am m ock v . Sum nerCo. , N o. 0 1 A 0 1

- 9 7 1 0

- C V

- 0 0 6 0 0 , 19 9 7 W L 7 4 9 4 6 1 (T enn. C t

. A p p . 19 9 7 ).

-2- Th e tr ia l c ou rt

de c lin e d to or de r the plaint if f to su bmi t to a ph y sic a l e xami natio n by the de fe nd a nts ’ expert even thoug h the pl aintiffs’ e x pert ha d rec ently examined the plaintiff. We have de termined that the application for an extraordinary appea l should be granted. Furthermore , the application and the answe r fully

set forth the pa

rties’ positions and the materia l f acts, and we dispense with further briefing and ora l arg ument and pr o ce ed t o the merits of the a ppeal in orde r to save the parties additional time and ex pense. We conclude that, beca use t he plaintiffs’ e x pert ha s based his opinion 2 reg ardi ng di sp ute d is su e s in pa rt on a ph y sic a l e xami natio n o f the plaint if f, g oo d c a us e e xists to or de r the plaint if

f t o s ub mit

to a ph y sic a l e xami natio n b y

the de fe nd a nts ’ e xpe rt

. I.
On Dec ember

8, 2000, Wil liam and Susan Pykosh were involved in an automobile ac cident wi th S te ph a nie A. Ea

rp s in Wils on Cou nty . Mr. a nd Ms. Pyko sh su bs e qu e ntl y fi le d a c omp la int in the Circuit Court for Wilson C ounty ag ainst Ms. Earps and the owner s o f the ve hicle she w as driving , Clarenc e Earps and C olleen Earps, alleg ing that Ms. Py kosh had sustained serious, painful a nddis abli ng bo dil y

inj urie s. Ms. Pyko sh wa s in vo lve d ina se c ond auto mob ile a c c ide nt i n Davidson County

on Aug ust 23, 2001. Consequently , the p ar t i es an ticipate that the que stion of wh ic h a c c ide nt c aus e d w hic h in jurie s w ill be a maj or foc us of the tr ia l. T he pe rm a ne nc y of Ms. Pykosh’s injuries will also be at issue.
I n Jan ua ry of 20 04 , M r. a ndMs Pyko sh re taine d Dr . Ri c ha rdF ish be in a s a

me dic a l e xpe rt

. Dr. F ishbein has opined that Ms. Pykosh injured her neck and back a s a re sult of the first ac cident and that the se cond ac cident only serve d to ag g ravate her neck and back pain. He also e stimated her perma nent impairment. Dr. Fishbein based his opinions on both a revie w of Ms. Pykosh’s medica l rec ords and a

phy sical examination of Ms. Py kosh. Mr. and Ms. Pykosh do not intend to call Dr. F ishbein as a l i v e wi t n es s at trial but rathe r intend to present his evide ntiary deposition. Th er ef

o re , t h e defenda nts decided to ha ve their ow n me dic a l e xpe rt

e xami ne Ms. Pyko sh in o rd e r t o p re pa re fo r the ir

c ro ss e xami natio n o f D r. F ish be in a ndin o rd e r to re fu te his e xpe c te d te sti mon y . A c c or din g ly , th e de fe nd a nts fi le d a Te nn . R. Civ . P. 35.01 motion seeking the trial court’s authorization for their e x pert to examine Ms. Py kosh. Mr. and Ms. Py kosh opposed the motion. The trial court d en i ed the motion after de termining that the defe ndants had not shown g ood cause to order Ms. Pykosh t o s u b m it to an examination. The de fe nd a nts the re a ft e r f

ile d th is T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 0 a pp lic a tio n f

or a n e xtra or din ary

app e a l.
II. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 35.01 permits a court to order a party to submit to a phy sical examination. B e c aus e a ny

ph y sic a l e xami natio n in vo lve s so me de g re e of in vas ionof priva c y , th e ru le a tte mpt s to balance the intere sts of persona l privacy with the interest of truth a nd justice. Odom v. O dom , No. M1999-02811-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 1543476, at * 4 -9 (Tenn. Ct. App. De c. 5, 2001). ToT h e trial c o u rt m u st sp e c ify the sc o p e o f t h e e x a m ina tio n in its o rd e r. T e n n . R

. A p p . P . 3 5 .0 1 . C e rta inly a 3 highe r sho w i ng o f go o d ca use w o uld b e nec essa ry w ere t he d efen d an t s req ue st i ng t ha t t he t rial co urt o rd er M s. P yko sh t o sub m i t t o m o re risky, p ainful o r i nv asive p ro ce d ure s. -3- invoke Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 5

. 0 1 s u cce ssfully , a moving party must establish two thi ng s. First, the moving pa

rty must establish that the mental or phy sical con d i t i o n o f a party or a pe rson in the custody of a party is “in controversy .” S econd, the moving party must establish that “g ood cause ” exis ts for the phy sical or menta l examination. Odom v. O dom , No. M1999-02811-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 1543476, at *4-9 (T enn. Ct. App. Dec .5, 2001).
There can be littl e dispute that Ms. Pykosh’s phy sical condition is “in controve rsy .” The p l ai n t i ffs h av e m ad e c l ai m s b as ed o n M s . P yk o s h ’s i n j u ri es , an d t h e d ef

en d an t s i n t en d t o ch al l en ge the plaintiffs’ c laims reg arding both the causation and the permanenc y of those injuries. Notwithstanding the trial court’ s discretion in these matter s, we ha ve also de ter mined that g ood cause exis ts to order Ms. Pykosh to underg o a phy sical examination by an expert selec ted by the de fe n d a n t s . T h e d e f

e n d a n t s c o u l d , o f

c o u r s e , h a v e t h e i r

e xp e r tf o r ma n o p i n i o n b a s e d o n M s. Pyko sh ’s me dic a l re c or ds

. Ho we ve r, the plaint if fs ’ e xpe rt ha s h a d th e op po rtun ity

to e xami ne Ms. Pyko sh a ndha s r e nd e re d a n o pin ionreg ard ing c a us a tio n a ndpe rm a ne nc y ba se d inpa

rt on his examination. Ms. P ykosh’s objection to a further e x amination is that she does not want to be “ poked or prodde d by someone she doesn’t choose” or to be “examined by a strang e doctor .” This court has interpre ted Rule 35.01 to provide a de fendant the rig ht to have the plaintiff e x amined by a phy sician selec ted by the defe ndant unless the plaintiff can show a g ood rea son why the cour t should not honor the def endant’ s choice

. Newton v. Ceasar , No. M2000-01117-COA- R10-CV, 2000 WL 863447 at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2000) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) . There is no indication the def endants a re r equesting that their expert be a llowed to do anything other than what the plaintiffs’ expert has a lrea dy done, i.e. ask questions and have Ms. Py kosh perf orm some ra ng e of motion tests. “So long a s plaintiff may selec t his own doctor to testify as to his phy sical condition, 3 fundame ntal fairne ss dic tates that a def endant sha ll have the sa me rig ht.” 8A C H A RLES A. W R I GHT ET AL ., F ED ER A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE DURE §2234.2, at 485(2d e d. 1994).
III . We reve rse the order denying the defe ndants’ motion to have Ms. Pykosh examined by an expert selec ted by the defendants. The case is rema nded to the t rial court with direc tions to enter a n or de r d ir e c tin g Ms. Pyko sh to sub mit to an e xami natio n by the de fe nd a nts ’ expe rt c on sis te nt w ith this opinion. We ta x the costs of this appeal to Susan and William P ykosh for whic h execution may issue.

PER C URI AM