Opinion ID: 2711584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Before the Trial Court

Text: The relevant facts are not in dispute. Lindell was injured when the vehicle that he had been driving was rear ended by a vehicle that Kalugin drove. Lindell initiated a personal injury action against Kalugin and his employer, Countryside Construction, Inc., owner of the vehicle that Kalugin was driving at the time of the accident. Lindell alleged that, as a result of the collision, he now suffers from amnesia, headaches, post-traumatic stress disorder, tinnitus, and an inability to focus on or track conversations. During the pretrial discovery phase, Countryside arranged two defense medical examinations of Lindell, including a neuropsychological examination by Dr. Donna Wicher. Lindell asked that certain conditions be imposed on the conduct of the examination. One condition was: Cite as 353 Or 338 (2013) 341 “Paul Lindell is permitted to have a friend or family member present at the exam as an observer, so long as this person does not interfere with the examination. This observer will unobtrusively make an audio tape recording of the exam; plaintiff ’s counsel shall provide defense counsel with a copy of the recording upon request.” Countryside discussed the proposed condition with Dr. Wicher, who told Countryside that a neuropsychological evaluation “could not be performed under the condition[] suggested.” Because Lindell would not submit to the examination without the above-stated condition, Countryside moved to compel the examination pursuant to ORCP 44 A, which, as we describe in detail below, provides that a trial court may order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination when that party’s physical or mental condition is in controversy. In response to the motion to compel, Lindell explained that he did not oppose submitting to the neuropsychological evaluation, so long as certain conditions were imposed. Specifically, Lindell asked the court to “include the unobtrusive presence of an observer, and a tape recording” as conditions of the examination. Lindell asserted that “[t]his is not only generally a good idea in order to provide independent documentation of what occurred during the examination but is essential in this case because of the nature of plaintiff ’s head injury and his vulnerability.” Furthermore, he added, he “has a constitutional right to counsel in this case arising from the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution. Art. I Section 10, Or. Constitution. [sic] That right requires that he be allowed to have an attorney or designee present as an observer and to make an audio or video (and audio) recording.” Attached as an exhibit to his response, Lindell provided a draft order that set out his proposed conditions of the medical examination. Those conditions included: “6. Paul Lindell is permitted to have    legal counsel or a friend or family member present at the exam as an 342 Lindell v. Kalugin observer, so long as this person is unobtrusive and does not interfere with the examination. “7. The observer may unobtrusively make an audio and/or video recording of the exam; plaintiff ’s counsel shall provide defense counsel with a copy of the recording upon request.” Countryside opposed the imposition of the requested conditions. It submitted to the court a letter from Dr. Laurence M. Binder, a clinical professor of neurology and psychiatry at Oregon Health and Science University and one of plaintiff ’s own consulting doctors, who summarized his personal views and the views of the National Academy of Neuropsychology and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on the subject of allowing observers or audiotaping of independent examinations. In brief, Binder explained that “[o]ur profession strongly opposes observation by third parties or audiotaping of exams because of two concerns.” First, he explained that third-party observation or audiorecording “is incompatible with maintenance of test security.” According to Binder, the validity of many neuropsychological tests depends on the examinee not being familiar with them and thus not being able to prepare for them. Second, he explained that the presence of observers or audiorecording affects test performance. According to Binder, “peer-reviewed, published research has demonstrated that people tested with observers present or with an audiotape recorder running perform worse on neuropsychological tests than people tested without observers or taping.” Countryside also submitted a published article by Dr. Richard Kolbell, Chair of the Ethics Committee of the Oregon Psychological Association, which likewise opposed the presence of observers or audiorecording of examinations, on both practical and ethical grounds. The article concluded with a statement of the Oregon Psychology Association opposing the presence of third-party observers in neuropsychological examinations. The statement asserts that, “[t]he use of a third party observer during a forensic psychological and/or neuropsychological evaluation does not meet an acceptable standard of practice and is not permissible under current professional and ethical standards.” Cite as 353 Or 338 (2013) 343 After a hearing, the trial court granted Countryside’s motion to compel, but declined imposing the two foregoing conditions. The court explained that “[t]he practice of this court is [to] deny the accompaniment of an observer, and the recording of the examination, in the absence of circumstances that make an exception to that general rule necessary for a fair examination. I am not persuaded that such circumstances exist here.”