Case Name: POTTER v. VILLAGE OF HAMMONDSPORT
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-28
Citations: 98 N.Y.S. 186
Docket Number: 
Parties: POTTER v. VILLAGE OF HAMMONDSPORT.
Judges: Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 98
Pages: 186–190

Head Matter:
(112 App. Div. 91)
POTTER v. VILLAGE OF HAMMONDSPORT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 28, 1906.)
1. Discovery — Physical Examination of Plaintiff.
Code Civ. Proc. § 873, providing that, in an action for personal injuries, the court in granting an order for examination of plaintiff before trial may, on application of defendant, direct that plaintiff submit to a physical examination by physicians to be designated by the court, and that, if plaintiff be a female, she shall be entitled to have such examination “before” physicians of her own sex, means the examination of a female plaintiff shall be by, and not merely in the presence of, physicians of her own sex.
2. Sale — Examination of Physicians.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 873, providing that, in an action for personal injuries, the court in granting an order for examination of plaintiff before trial may, on application of defendant, direct that plaintiff submit to a physical examination by physicians to be designated by the court, the order may not provide for examination of the physicians before the referee.
3. Same — Limiting Examination.
An order under Code Civ. Proc. § 873, for examination before trial of plaintiff in a personal injury case, she to submit to a physical examination by physicians, should limit the examination of plaintiff under oath to injuries as to the nature and extent of the injuries complained of, and the place where and the peculiar manner in which the injuries were received, so far as necessary to enable the defendant to ascertain the nature and extent of the injuries.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 16, Cent. Dig. Discovery, §§ 96, 97.]
Williams and Nash, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Steuben County.
Action by Rose Potter against the village of Hammondsport. From an order modifying an order therefor made for examination of plaintiff before trial, defendant appeals.
Modified.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
Walter S. Drew, for appellant.
Leveme Thomas, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
We all agree that the order appealed from should be modified. There is, however, a division among us respecting the ex amining physicians and surgeons. The county judge in his original order named three physicians, one of whom was a woman. Subsequently he modified the order by striking out these names and naming two women physicians. It is now proposed that this court shall strike out the names of these two physicians last appointed and restore the names of the three physicians originally appointed. We think this modification ought not to be made.
1. No good reason exists, so far as the record discloses, for interfering with the judgment and discretion of the county judge in that regard, and we might well rest our decision upon that ground.
2. It is, however, contended that the county judge made this change because he thought the plaintiff had a legal right to have the examination made by physicians of her own sex. Assuming that to be true, which seems quite probable, we are still of the opinion that the county judge was right. We think the provisions of section 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the physical examination of a plaintiff at the instance of the adverse party, entitles a female to have the examination by physicians of her own sex, and that the phrase, "before physicians or surgeons of her own sex," means that the examination shall be made by them, and not merely in their presence. We cannot assent to the view that it was ever intended that a woman should be compelled to expose her person to a physical examination by physicians and surgeons not of her own sex or selection. We are not called upon to give a construction to this provision so literal as to permit this to be done. The information so acquired by the examining physician is not gained under the ban of secrecy, for she does not stand in the confidential relation of patient to the examining physician. Judge O'Brien, in the case of Lyon v. Manhattan R. Co., 142 N. Y. 298, 37 N. E. 113, 25 L. R. A. 402, quotes from the opinion of Mr. Justice Gray delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 11 Sup. Ct. 1000, 35 L. Ed. 734, the following:
"The inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow. To compel any one, especially a woman, to lay bare the body, or to submit it to the touch of a stranger, without lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault, and a trespass."
While section 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure has changed this rule of the common law, this change should not be extended beyond a fair and reasonable interpretation of the statute which makes this innovation. Where a woman is compelled to submit to a physical examination under the provisions of this section, we think she has the right to require such examination to be made by physicians of her own sex. This view to us seems reasonable, and does no violence to the language of the statute.
The order appealed from should be modified by (1) striking out the provision for the oral examination of the physicians and surgeons, and (2) by striking out the entire provision limiting the examination of the plaintiff under oath and inserting in place thereof the following: "Ordered, that the examination of the plaintiff under oath be limited to inquiries as to the nature and extent of the injuries complained of and the place where the peculiar manner in which the injuries were re ceived, so far as necessary to enable the defendant to ascertain the nature and extent of such injuries" — and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
All concur, except WILLIAMS and NASH, JJ., who dissent.