Opinion ID: 1465010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: cr 35.01 examination.

Text: Civil Rule 35.01 provides as follows: When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician, dentist or appropriate health care expert, or to produce for examination the person in his custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. The rule was born out of controversy. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the common law viewed court-ordered medical examinations as repugnant to a person's privacy and bodily integrity. Indeed, in Union Pacific Ry. Co v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891), the Court held that [t]he inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure [by the examining doctor], as by a blow. Id. at 251-52, 11 S.Ct. at 1001. The drafters of CR 35.01's federal counterpart, FRCP 35(a), attempted to console the holders of this viewpoint by making the rule different from nearly every other federal rule. Whereas the basic rule of discovery is that [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant, see FRCP 26(b)(1) and CR 26.02(1), FRCP 35 is more restrictive. Before discovery is permitted under Rule 35, the movant must prove that the condition of the examinee is in controversy and demonstrate good cause for the examination. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 117-18, 85 S.Ct. 234, 242, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) (noting this distinction between FRCP 35(a) and other federal rules); Guilford Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. S. Ry. Co., 297 F.2d 921, 924 (4th Cir.1962) (there must be greater showing of need under Rules 34 and 35 than under the other discovery rules.). However, this restriction did not mollify all of the rule's critics. In the seminal case of Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 61 S.Ct. 422, 85 L.Ed. 479 (1941), [2] FRCP 35 was attacked as invalid under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 723 (1934) (now 28 U.S.C. § 2072), in part because it allegedly violated the important right to freedom from invasion of the person. Id. at 14, 61 S.Ct. at 426. While the Court upheld the rule, Justice Frankurter registered a vehement dissent joined by Justices Black, Douglas, and Murphy: I deem a requirement as to the invasion of the person to stand on a very different footing from questions pertaining to the discovery of documents, pretrial procedure and other devices for the expeditious, economic and fair conduct of litigation. Id. at 18, 61 S.Ct. at 428. Despite this storied past, Kentucky law since the enactment of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR), 1952 Ky. Acts, ch. 18, eff. July 1, 1953, has heretofore been silent on the question of what conditions may be imposed upon a CR 35.01 examination for the protection of the examinee once it has been determined that an examination is warranted. In Turner v. Commonwealth, Ky., 767 S.W.2d 557 (1988), and Bart v. Commonwealth, Ky., 951 S.W.2d 576 (1997), we clarified that CR 35.01 applies only to a party or one under the control or custody of a party. 767 S.W.2d at 559, 951 S.W.2d at 578; but cf. Mack v. Commonwealth, Ky., 860 S.W.2d 275, 277 (1993) (noting that due process may nevertheless require an examination of a nonparty prosecuting witness). In Perry v. Commonwealth ex. rel Kessinger, Ky., 652 S.W.2d 655 (1983), we held that the rule applies to a defendant in a paternity proceeding. Id. at 660. And, in Taylor v. Morris, Ky., 62 S.W.3d 377 (2001), we held that the plaintiff's claim that she had injured her neck and back, accompanied by the expected testimony of the plaintiff's doctor that she had a permanent impairment, was sufficient for the trial judge to find good cause to compel her to submit to a CR 35.01 examination. Id. at 380. A plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury. Id. ( quoting Schlagenhauf v. Holder, supra, at 119, 85 S.Ct. at 243) (internal citation omitted). However, these decisions only addressed when the rule authorizes a trial court to compel an examination, not what conditions the trial court may place on the examination itself. [3] Because FRCP 35(a) mirrors CR 35.01, federal court decisions interpreting [FRCP 35(a)] may be accepted as persuasive authority when examining CR 35.01. Taylor, supra, at 379. However, federal decisions are of only limited assistance with respect to the propriety of ordering the examination videotaped. To date, no published federal court of appeals opinion has reviewed a federal district court's decision to order, or refuse to order, the videotaping of a Rule 35(a) examination. Indeed, only one published federal court of appeals opinion has reviewed any district court decision with respect to Rule 35(a) conditionsand that was a review of a decision denying the imposition of conditions. See Sanden v. Mayo Clinic, 495 F.2d 221, 225 (8th Cir.1974) ([a]lthough the examined party will usually be permitted to have his or her own physician present, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff, who was a registered nurse, that opportunity). Federal trial courts have produced mixed results when deciding whether particular circumstances warrant the presence of a video camera or other recording device in the examination room. See 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus Federal Practice & Procedure: § 2236, at 496 (2d ed.1994) (noting that federal courts have responded to issues of a third party or recording presence at Rule 35 examinations in diverse ways that may, in large measure, be explained by the particular circumstances presented.); compare, e.g., Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., 585 F.Supp. 635, 636 (E.D.Wis.1984) (allowing examination to be videotaped), with Abdulwali v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 193 F.R.D. 10, 14 (D.D.C.2000) (denying request to videotape). Nevertheless, we are not left completely without direction. Courts have unanimously accepted the tenet that the conditions of a Rule 35 examination are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: § 2234, supra, at 476 (The trial court has extensive discretion in determining the details of the examination.); Sanden, supra, at 225; Lewin v. Jackson, 108 Ariz. 27, 492 P.2d 406, 411 (1972); Hayes v. District Court, 854 P.2d 1240, 1245-46 (Colo.1993); Jacob v. Chaplin, 639 N.E.2d 1010, 1012 (Ind.1994); Guskjolen v. Guskjolen, 391 N.W.2d 639, 641 (N.D.1986); State ex rel. Hess v. Henry, 183 W.Va. 28, 393 S.E.2d 666, 669 (1990); cf. Mack v. Commonwealth, supra, at 277 (applying abuse of discretion standard to trial court's decision whether examinee is a party under CR 35.01). We have held in numerous cases that the trial court enjoys broad discretion in matters pertaining to discovery. E.g., Berry v. Commonwealth, Ky., 782 S.W.2d 625, 627-28 (1990); see also Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598-99, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 1597, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (noting trial court's broad discretion to tailor and limit discovery). Consequently, we conclude that the same standard should apply to a trial court's decisions with respect to a CR 35.01 examination and will review such decisions for abuse of discretion. Cf. Miller v. United States Fid. & Guar, Co., Ky.App., 909 S.W.2d 339, 342 (1995) (applying abuse of discretion standard to trial court's decision as to whether insurer had shown good cause for a physical examination under KRS 304.39-270). Other jurisdictions agree that some circumstances would merit an external presence in the examination room. As noted supra, those federal courts that have refused to allow such a presence have been federal district courts, and they have done so on the particular facts of the cases before them. E.g., Abdulwali, supra, at 14 (denying request to videotape when plaintiff offered only unsupported assertion that psychiatric examination was a manipulative attempt at deposing the plaintiff); Holland v. United States, 182 F.R.D. 493, 496 (D.S.C.1998) (denying request where no compelling circumstances); Romano v. II Morrow, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 271, 274 (D.Or.1997) (denying request when the plaintiffs have not provided an explanation for why they would require comfort during the examinations.). Other federal district courts have allowed an audio recorder, stenographer, or video camera in the examination room. Sidari v. Orleans Cty., 174 F.R.D. 275, 291 (W.D.N.Y.1996) (audio recorder); Di Bari v. Incaica Cia Armadora, S.A., 126 F.R.D. 12, 14 (E.D.N.Y.1989) (stenographer); Zabkowicz, supra, at 636 (video camera). Still other federal district courts have allowed the examinee's attorney to attend the examination (a request Afterkirk did not make in the underlying action here). Gensbauer v. May Dep't Stores Co., 184 F.R.D. 552, 553 (E.D.Pa.1999); Vreeland v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 551, 551 (S.D.N.Y.1993). And, some federal district courts have permitted the examinee's physician to attend in lieu of his attorney. Lowe v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 296, 299 (E.D.Pa.1983); Warrick v. Brode, 46 F.R.D. 427, 428 (D.Del.1969); Dziwanoski v. Ocean Carriers Corp., 26 F.R.D. 595, 598 (D.Md.1960). In some states, the right to an external presence in the examination room is provided within the rule. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 35(a) (providing for right to audiotape and for examinee's representative to attend physical examination, and for videotaping upon showing of good cause); Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 2032(g)(1) (giving attorney right to attend and record, but not participate in or disrupt, the examination); Ill. Stat. ch. 735, § 5/21003(d) (providing right of attendance by attorney or other such person as the plaintiff may wish.); Mich. Ct. R. 2.311 (providing that order may provide for attendance of examinee's attorney); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 3235(d) (giving examinee's representative right to attend); Pa. R. Civ. P. 4010(4)(i) (The person to be examined shall have the right to have counsel or other representative present during the examination.). Even absent a specific provision in the rule, many state courts have allowed a recording device or other external presence as a matter of course. Langfeldt-Haaland v. Saupe Enters., Inc., 768 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Alaska 1989) (We align Alaska with those authorities which allow plaintiff's counsel to attend and record, as a matter of course, court-ordered medical examinations in civil cases.); U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Cimino, 754 So.2d 697, 700-01 (Fla.2000) (Florida follows a liberal view when determining whether attorneys may attend examinations.); Jacob v. Chaplin, 639 N.E.2d 1010, 1013 (Ind.1994) (allowing either party to record in the absence of some overriding reason to prohibit that recording.); B.D. v. Carley, 307 N.J.Super. 259, 704 A.2d 979, 981 (App.Div.1998) (Plaintiff's right to preserve evidence of the nature of the examination, the accuracy of the examiner's notes or recollections, the tones of voice and the like outweigh the examiner's preference that there be no recording device.); Parsons v. Hytech Tool & Die, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 936, 661 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y.App.Div.1997) (A plaintiff being examined by a defense physician is entitled to have his or her attorney present during the examination unless defendant makes a positive showing of necessity for the exclusion of the attorney.); Tietjen v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 13 Wash.App. 86, 534 P.2d 151, 154 (1975) (holding that attorney is entitled to be present and [a]ny unnecessary interference caused by an attorney could be alleviated by specific court order.). Thus, it cannot be seriously argued that under no circumstances should an external presence be allowed in the examination room. The debate lies in what circumstances and in what form an external presence may be appropriate. As the discussion supra indicates, federal district courts have been less likely to allow such a presence than state courts. Commentators have attributed this trend to a difference in how the examination is perceived. See William S. Wyatt & Richard A. Bales, The Presence of Third Parties at Rule 35 Examinations, 71 Temp. L.Rev. 103, 116-24 (1998); Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: § 2236, supra, at 496-97. Is the Rule 35 examination a purely objective and scientific procedure? Or is the examination a fundamental part of the adversary process? Federal courts generally have adopted the philosophy that such an examination should be objective and scientific. Accordingly, they have been wary of any external presence that has the potential to insert the adversary process into the examination room. E.g., Romano, supra, at 274 (`the presence of the observer interjects an adversarial, partisan atmosphere into what should be otherwise a wholly objective inquiry.'), quoting Shirsat v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 169 F.R.D. 68, 71 (E.D.Pa.1996); Tomlin v. Holecek, 150 F.R.D. 628, 633-34 (D.Minn.1993) (Were we to honor the Plaintiff's request, that his counsel be present during the interview or that a taperecording of the interview be preserved so as to assist in his attorney's questioning of Dr. Aletky, we would be endorsing, if not promoting, the infusion of the adversary process into the psychologist's examining room ....); but see Gensbauer, supra, 184 F.R.D. at 553 (Although, in theory, an [independent medical examination] is to be scientific rather than adversarial, experience suggests that it is often the latter.); Di Bari, supra, 126 F.R.D. at 14 (a psychiatric examination by defendant's doctor is in reality adversarial in nature.). States have generally recognized that while a Rule 35 examination is ideally a purely scientific exercise, it is also, inevitably, another arena in which the litigation is joined. E.g., Jacob, supra, 639 N.E.2d at 1013 (The purpose of the examination is to further the litigation process.); Jakubowski v. Lengen, 86 A.D.2d 398, 400-01, 450 N.Y.S.2d 612 (N.Y.App.Div.1982) (A physician selected by defendant to examine plaintiff is not necessarily a disinterested, impartial medical expert, indifferent to the conflicting interests of the parties.). The examining doctor may be encouraged by his employer to treat the examination as a de facto deposition. Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: § 2236, supra, at 496. Given this reality, these states hold by rule or decision that the examinee may be entitled to a degree of protection against a physician hired by the adversary. We are persuaded by the latter view. By its very terms, CR 35.01 applies only when the mental or physical condition of the examinee is in controversy. The examining party, almost by definition, moves for a CR 35.01 examination with the hope of furthering its litigation position. [4] Thus, the examining physician will nearly always be hired with an adversarial mind-set. In Tuttle v. Perry, Ky., 82 S.W.3d 920 (2002), we recognized that expert witnesses are often compensated handsomely and it is widely believed that they may be expected to express opinions that favor the party who engaged them and who pays their fees. Id. at 923. Tuttle also noted that certain expert witnesses derive a significant portion of their total income from testifying in litigation. Id. We would close our eyes to reality, Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 767, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 2517, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (Kennedy, J., dissenting), were we to pretend, simply because CR 35.01 examinations should be conducted with only the health of the examinee in mind, that they always are so conducted. [5] Nevertheless, recognition of this potentiality does not mean that an external presence should automatically be permitted, as it is in some jurisdictions discussed supra. Indeed, the purpose of CR 35.01 is to level the playing field. Taylor v. Morris, supra, at 379; Sexton v. Bates, supra, at 457. An external presence that deprives the examining party of the opportunity to level the playing field by conducting a truly objective examination would destroy the very purpose of the rule. Therefore, we hold that the trial court may impose an external presence at a CR 35.01 examination only upon a showing of good cause by the examinee. This holding places Kentucky in the median of the authorities discussed supra. We reject the compelling need test invented by some federal district courts, finding that test to be unsupported by the language or rationale of CR 35.01. Similarly, we decline to make an external presence automatic. Unlike jurisdictions such as California and Pennsylvania, our rule contains no provision for the automatic attendance of the examinee's attorney, physician, or recording device. This approach also most closely conforms to the plain language of CR 35.01 and the ordinary operation of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. As noted supra, CR 35.01, like FRCP 35(a), is procedurally unusual in that it permits the examination only upon a showing of good cause by the examining party. This requires an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination. Schlagenhauf, supra, at 118, 85 S.Ct. at 242-43. The rule imposes no such requirement upon the examining party with regard to the conditions of the examination. It simply requires that the trial court's order  shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. (Emphasis added.) Ordinarily, a party seeking to limit discovery is required to move for a protective order pursuant to CR 26.03. See Sexton v. Bates, supra, at 457 (noting propriety of application of protective order to CR 35.01); see also Volvo Car Corp. v. Hopkins, Ky., 860 S.W.2d 777, 779 (1993); Shobe v. EPI Corp., Ky., 815 S.W.2d 395, 398 (1991). Parties may limit discovery pursuant to CR 26.03 only for good cause shown. Given the frequency of its usage, this standard is well known to both trial courts and attorneys. Thus, we find that good cause is the appropriate standard by which to evaluate conditions sought by the examinee on a CR 35.01 examination. See Wright, Miller, & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: § 2234, supra, at 475-76 (The provisions of Rule 26(c) on protective orders are applicable to Rule 35 and a court ordering a physical or mental examination may make appropriate protective provisions in its order.). The trial court should examine each request individually, and decide in its discretion whether the proposed external presence in the examination room is supported by good cause. In exercising this discretion, the trial court should weigh three primary factors. First, it should consider the nature of the proposed external presence. An attorney is most likely to be problematic because of the potential to unfairly disrupt the examination. As some commentators have noted, [e]ven a few well-timed objections could seriously undermine the examination, and it is not difficult to imagine an overzealous attorney making more than a few objections. Wyatt & Bales, supra, at 117. A court order requiring the attorney to remain silent lessens the potential for disturbance but the attorney's presence is then of doubtful utility to the examinee because an attorney may not act as a witness. SCR 3.130(3.7); Morrison's Adm'r v. Redmon, Ky., 287 S.W.2d 167, 168 (1956) (when a lawyer is a witness for his client... he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel). Thus, an attorney could not dispute a perceived inaccuracy in the doctor's testimony without jeopardizing his representation of the examinee. In fact, Afterkirk's attorney advised during oral argument that this was precisely why he did not ask that he be permitted to attend the examination. While we do not hold that an attorney should never be allowed to attend a CR 35.01 examination of his client, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where such attendance would be warranted. On the other hand, the potential disturbance from a video or audio recorder is minimal, assuming the operator remains stationary, a suitable distance from the examination table, and does not otherwise interfere with the conduct of the examination. See Jacob, supra, 639 N.E.2d at 1013 (We also fail to see any reason why electronic recording of the examination would in and of itself impede an examiner's ability to conduct a fair and complete examination.); Henry, 393 S.E.2d at 669 (an unobtrusive device, such as a tape recorder, presents little risk of interference in the physician's examination.). A video camera also has the advantage of creating an exact record of the examination. Even if so inclined, no examiner would physically abuse an examinee in front of a camera. Further, there will be no battle of words at trial. If the examiner remembers the details of the examination differently from the examinee, the videotape will be available to put the matter to rest. See Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So.2d 1320, 1321 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984) (it is the privacy of the [examinee] that is involved, not that of the examiner, and if the [examinee] wants to be certain that this compelled, although admittedly reasonable, intrusion into her privacy be accurately preserved, then she should be so entitled.). The presence of a physician or nurse will usually fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. When the examiner is aware that a colleague is observing the examination, he or she may be more likely to conform to the highest technical and ethical medical standards. See Wyatt & Bales, supra, at 127 (The presence of a physician may have a minimally adverse effect on the examination, but the presence also has a high probability of facilitating a fair and impartial search for the relevant information.). Medical observers are less likely than attorneys to act as adversaries yet may ensure that the examination is fairly and properly conducted. See Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure: § 2236, supra, at 497 (noting that a scientifically valid test may be conducted in a faulty manner). As noted supra, several courts have allowed a physician to be present when the examinee's attorney has been excluded from the examination. Lowe v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 296, 299 (E.D.Pa.1983); Warrick v. Brode, 46 F.R.D. 427, 428 (D.Del.1969); Dziwanoski v. Ocean Carriers Corp., 26 F.R.D. 595, 598 (D.Md.1960). Except in unusual circumstances, the trial court should order that such persons, if allowed, be only silent observers. The concern for a level playing field mandates that the CR 35.01 examiner be permitted to work in peace. Generally speaking, interruption will be unnecessary because evidence obtained through improper questioning by the examiner may be excluded at trial. Wheat v. Biesecker, 125 F.R.D. 479, 480 (N.D.Ind.1989). Second, the trial court should consider evidence that the requested examination might by conducted in an unfair manner. This evidence may include, but should not be limited to: (a) evidence of past physical abuse of examinees by the examiner; (b) evidence of past misrepresentations by the examiner; (c) evidence that the examiner has financial incentives to consider the examinee as an adversary; and (d) evidence that the examiner's testimony is almost always slanted against the examinee, e.g., by showing that the doctor has seldom if ever found an examinee to be disabled. The mere fact that the doctor is being compensated should carry little weight since virtually all CR 35.01 examiners are compensated. However, the trial court should consider an allegation, e.g., that the examiner will be paid a bonus if the jury returns a verdict against the examinee, or that a substantial portion of the examiner's income is derived from repeat CR 35.01 business. Cf. Wyatt & Bales, supra, at 125-26 (listing examples of potential financial bias). Third, the trial court should consider the nature of the examination itself. For example, some courts have recognized that psychiatric examinations in particular necessitate an unimpeded, one-on-one exchange between the doctor and patient. Tomlin v. Holecek, 150 F.R.D. 628, 631-32 (D.Minn.1993); see also Abdulwali, supra, 193 F.R.D. at 13. An examining party resisting an external presence may submit an affidavit or other evidence detailing the precise reasons why the examination should proceed in isolation. Obviously, an affidavit supported by medical evidence and/or scientific analysis of the negative effects of an external presence during a particular examination will carry greater weight with the trial court than the physician's mere stated preference to work unobserved. Given the analysis and factors discussed supra, we conclude that Judge Overstreet had good cause to order that Dr. Primm's examination of Afterkirk be videotaped, [6] thus, did not abuse his discretion in that respect. Pursuant to CR 76.36(5), Afterkirk submitted evidence to the Court of Appeals in support of the order that tended to indicate Dr. Primm's bias. Although this evidence was not formally placed before Judge Overstreet, Appellees note that Judge Overstreet was the trial judge in one of the trials from which the information was gathered, i.e., Votaw v. Anchor Foods, No 98-Cl-000489 (Scott Cir. Ct.2001), and called the judge's attention to the Votaw case during oral argument on the proposed CR 35.01 conditions. In the Votaw case, Dr. Primm testified by deposition that in the year 2001 his CR 35.01 examinations amounted to approximately ten to fifteen percent of his practice. Dr. Primm estimated that he saw between thirty-five and seventy patients per week. Therefore, it may be estimated that he conducted between 3.5 (10% of 35) and 10.5 (15% of 70) CR 35.01 examinations per week. In general, he charged between $410.00 and $625.00 for each such examination, including the cost of x-rays. He was required to give a deposition in about one-third of such cases, and Appellees estimated that his charge for each deposition ranged from $650.00 to $900.00. [7] Dr. Primm testified that he was slowing down in 2001 and working only forty to forty-two weeks per year. Thus, based on forty weeks of work in 2001, it could be estimated for purposes of the petition that Dr. Primm earned annually between $83,400.00 (assuming 3.5 examinations per week at $410.00 and one deposition at $650.00) and $370,500.00 (assuming 10.5 examinations per week at $625.00 and three depositions at $900.00) for his CR 35.01 work. Dr. Primm also noted in his Votaw deposition that he had been performing these examinations for some time. He conceded that during a 1993 deposition he testified that he worked fifty weeks per year and CR 35.01 examinations constituted as much as twenty-five percent of his practice. Thus, Dr. Primm earned as much as $832,500.00 annually from such examinations at that time (50 weeks × (18 exams at $625.00) + (6 depositions at $900.00)). [8] Judge Overstreet was familiar with these figures from having presided over the Votaw trial. Appellees also submitted to the Court of Appeals affidavits from the Votaw examinee and another examinee from a different case, Rose Rhodus, regarding their experiences with Dr. Primm. Betty Votaw averred in her affidavit that Dr. Primm was very rude and repeatedly distorted what I told him. He tried to get me to say things that I had not stated. He was very intimidating. She claimed that although she has walked with a distinct limp since childhood, Dr. Primm stated in his notes that she did not walk with a limp. Further, when she told Dr. Primm she had problems raising her arm, he grabbed [her] arms and jerked them up hurting [her]. Rhodus similarly averred that Dr. Primm was extremely rude to me and tried to mislead me regarding my description of my symptoms. She claimed that Dr. Primm never asked me about any of the pain I was experiencing, and when she brought the subject up, he abruptly turned away from [her] and walked out of the room concluding the examination. Rhodus also described Dr. Primm as physically abusive. When she explained that she was unable to touch her toes, Dr. Primm allegedly placed his hands upon [her] and tried to physically force [her] to make the bending movement that he had requested. Of course, we take no view with respect to the accuracy of these allegations but only note that they support Judge Overstreet's decision. MetLife does not articulate any convincing way in which a video camera would impair Dr. Primm's examination. Its suggestion that Afterkirk would perform for the camera is speculative and unconvincing. Issues of credibility, including any false performance by Afterkirk, are for the jury to evaluate. Norris v. Commonwealth, Ky., 89 S.W.3d 411, 417 (2002); Young v. Commonwealth, Ky., 50 S.W.3d 148, 165 (2001); Commonwealth v. Smith, Ky., 5 S.W.3d 126, 129 (1999). And, while Dr. Primm purportedly prefers to work unobserved, MetLife provided no persuasive reason why that preference is medically necessary. Our analysis of CR 35.01 applies equally to examinations conducted by plaintiffs and defendants. Although MetLife correctly observes that in most circumstances it is a defendant's physician who will conduct an examination of a plaintiff, that is not always the case. Schlagenhauf, supra, at 112-14, 85 S.Ct. at 239-40 (noting that Rule 35 applies equally to defendants and plaintiffs); Harabedian v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.2d 26, 31-32, 15 Cal.Rptr. 420 (Cal.Ct.App.1961) (ordering defendant to undergo eye examination); Brewster v. Martin Marietta Aluminum Sales, Inc., 107 Mich.App. 639, 309 N.W.2d 687, 691 (1981) (reversing order denying mental examination of sexual harassment defendant); Constantine v. Diello, 24 A.D.2d 821, 821-22, 264 N.Y.S.2d 153 (N.Y.App.Div.1965) (ordering defendant to undergo eye examination). Moreover, even when the defendant's physician is conducting the examination for the purpose of evaluating the plaintiff's claimed injuries, a video record of that examination has the potential to be extremely helpful. The videotape may be used both to bolster the examining doctor's testimony and to impeach the plaintiff and the plaintiff's medical expert. Any video or audio record of the examination should be made available to both parties pursuant to CR 35.02. Finally, we reject Appellant's suggestion that it is unfair to allow Dr. Primm's examination to be recorded when Afterkirk had the opportunity to meet with his own doctor unobserved. While this viewpoint admittedly has been advanced by some federal trial courts, e.g., Tomlin, supra, at 633, Hertenstein v. Kimberly Home Health Care, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 620, 631 (D.Kan.1999), we find it unpersuasive here. First, we have allowed Dr. Primm's examination to be videotaped only after a showing of good cause. The district courts in Tomlin and Hertenstein recognized their own authority to record the examination upon a showing of good cause, 150 F.R.D. at 633 n. 4, 189 F.R.D. at 628, but decided that good cause had not been shown, largely because the examinations in those cases were psychiatric examinations that those courts believed required an unimpeded, one-on-one exchange between the doctor and patient. 150 F.R.D. at 633, 189 F.R.D. at 630-31. This case presents only the issue of a physical examination. Second, there is an important difference between a party's examination by his own doctor and a court-ordered examination by a doctor hired by that party's adversary. The former is voluntary, usually (though admittedly not always) non-adversarial, and unlikely to produce differing accounts of what occurred during the examination. The latter, as discussed supra, is compelled by the court, inherently adversarial, and likely to produce accusations of misrepresentation like those made by Betty Votaw and Rose Rhodus. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court once referred to the compelled examination, not inaccurately, as a compulsory stripping and exposure. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 252, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891). Third, a trial court simply has no power to order conditions for a party's examination by that party's own doctor. The trial court's power to do so with respect to Dr. Primm's examination is authorized by CR 35.01, the same rule that provides the only authorization for the involuntary examination, itself. There will be equal access to the only videotape produced in this case pursuant to CR 35.02 and, under Judge Overstreet's order, both parties may make use of the videotape equally for impeachment purposes. The order thus gives rise to no cognizable unfairness.