Opinion ID: 842687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: appropriateness of the particular conditions at issue

Text: Because I find that the trial court was empowered to impose conditions on the examination, the next issue is whether the particular conditions it imposed were warranted. This Court reviews a trial court's decision regarding discovery for an abuse of discretion. People v. Phillips, 468 Mich. 583, 587, 663 N.W.2d 463 (2003). In this case, defendant challenges the following court-imposed conditions: 2. That the Plaintiff may be accompanied by her attorney or other representative as allowed by MCR 2.311(A) to observe the examination and/or be permitted to record the examination by means of simultaneous audio and visual recording.    14. That Plaintiff will not be required to give any oral history of the accident. 15. That Plaintiff will not be required to give any oral medical history not related to the areas of injuries claimed in this lawsuit. Defendant agreed to the condition that plaintiff be accompanied by her attorney and/or be permitted to record the examination if the court ruled that MCR 2.311(A) applied. Muci, 267 Mich.App. at 442-443, 705 N.W.2d 151. Accordingly, because I conclude that MCR 2.311(A) applies, defendant has agreed to allow plaintiff's attorney to attend the examination and to allow the examination to be recorded. In any event, MCR 2.311(A) explicitly provides that an attorney may be present during the examination. With regard to the condition forbidding the physician from taking an oral history of the accident, defendant has other means to accomplish this objective. It can request that plaintiff answer interrogatories outlining the history of the accident. See MCR 2.309. Defendant can also request that plaintiff answer interrogatories outlining plaintiff's unrelated medical history. Id. It is important to note that the conditions do not preclude a written history of unrelated medical injuries. They do not preclude the physician from inquiring into plaintiff's mental or physical condition at the time of the accident or asking how the injuries occurred or other similar questions. Accordingly, I believe that the remaining conditions challenged were reasonable, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing them.