Opinion ID: 1787070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred by allowing defense counsel to cross-examine herring regarding his refusal to submit to an independent medical examination and by granting the jury instruction d-5, regarding the same.

Text: ¶ 16. Herring argues that the trial court erred by allowing Poirrier's attorney to question Herring regarding his refusal to submit to an independent medical examination by a physician chosen by Poirrier's counsel, or, alternatively, by the court. Over the objection of James K. Wetzel, Herring's attorney, the circuit court allowed Robert W. Atkinson, counsel for Poirrier, to inquire as follows of Herring on cross-examination: Q. Isn't it true, sir, that you were offered the chance to have an independent medical examination by another doctor at no expense to you? A. I don't remember that. MR. ATKINSON: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Q. Do you recall answering interrogatories in this matter? A. Yes. Q. Written questions to you, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you reviewed the questions and then you gave answers to them under oath? A. Yes. Q. And you signed the interrogatories in the presence of a notary? A. Correct. Q. Let me read to you Interrogatory Number 21 and your answer, and tell me if I'm reading this wrong, please. MR. WETZEL: May I have an ongoing objection, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. Q. Will you agree to an independent medical examination at the expense of this defendant and conducted by a physician of his own choosing? Your answer was, No, correct? A. That's what thewhat it says. Q. That is what it says, and that is your signature? A. Yes. Q. And in front of a notary? A. (Nods head affirmatively.) Q. All right. Then THE COURT: Is that Yes? A. Yes. Q. The next question, Interrogatory MR. WETZEL: He's already answered the question. He's already answered the question. MR. ATKINSON: I said, The next question. MR. WETZEL: The question he's going to ask him now is cumulative to the first one. MR. ATKINSON: Your Honor, THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. Go ahead. Q. Next question, Number 22: Will you agree to an independent medical examination at the expense of this defendant and conducted by a physician duly appointed by the Court of record in this case? And your answer was No, correct? A. Correct. MR. WETZEL: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: So noted. Overruled. Q. You read those questions? A. Yes. Q. You provided those answers? A. It says I did. Q. You don't deny that. A. I don't deny it, no. ¶ 17. Herring's refusal to submit to an independent medical examination was brought before the jury at other times during the trial. During closing arguments, Poirrier's attorney reiterated Herring's refusal to submit to an independent medical examination and stated: You tell me why, if the plaintiff was hurt as badly as he claims, that he would refuse to submit to an independent medical examination free of charge.... Ladies and gentlemen, to hide, to hide behind the cover of darkness, to not expose yourself to being reviewed, I don't think there's any basis in the world for that when you're offered a chance for a second opinion. And you know what? Heavens, he's claiming that four years after the accident, he's still not doing well, not doing any better really. I would think he would be more than happy to accept a second opinion as to what his condition is and what he ought to do about it, because heavens, Dr. Danielson hasn't done him a bit of good. Also, the court granted instruction D-5, which provided as follows: The Court instructs the jury that under the laws of the State of Mississippi, a Defendant such as Joseph Poirrier cannot compel a Plaintiff such as Kenneth Herring to be seen by another doctor for a second opinion. The Court instructs the jury that the only way that Kenneth Herring could have been seen by another doctor for a second opinion, at the request of Joseph Poirrier, was for the Plaintiff to have consented to such request. ¶ 18. This Court's standard of review of the trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence is the abuse of discretion standard. Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997); Wade v. State, 583 So.2d 965, 967 (Miss.1991). As both parties recognize, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure do not give the court the authority to order a party whose physical or mental condition is in controversy to submit to an independent medical examination. Swan v. LP., Inc., 613 So.2d 846, 858 (Miss.1993). Herring contends that the question of whether he refused to submit to independent medical examination is irrelevant to the issues in the lawsuit and that the trial court's allowing the questioning on cross-examination was prejudicial error. Herring also contends that the trial court's granting of instruction D-5 inappropriately gave undue prominence to the questioning and amplified the error. ¶ 19. Poirrier argues that his attorney was entitled to question Herring regarding his refusal to submit to an independent medical examination because Herring's attorney opened the door to the questions by commenting during opening statements on the failure of Poirrier's medical expert, Dr. Graham, to examine Herring. During opening statements, Herring's attorney commented that the only evidence that Poirrier could submit pertaining to medical evidence would come from a doctor who did not personally examine Herring. This Court has held that comments during opening statements may open the door for evidence to rebut the same. Florence v. State, 755 So.2d 1065, 1070-72 (Miss.2000) (defendant's attorney opened the door during opening statements by denying any homosexual tendencies and the introduction of extrinsic evidence to rebut those statements was held as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial). Herring may not make comments during opening statements and then complain when the opposing party attempts to respond to them. ¶ 20. Here, Herring sought to discredit Poirrier's medical expert by pointing out that the expert had not examined Herring. On the other hand, Herring wanted to keep from the jury the fact that he did not submit to an examination by Poirrier's expert. This a litigant is not permitted to do. Accordingly, the questioning and comment regarding Herring's refusal to submit to a medical examination were properly admitted.