Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Trial Court Refuses To Allow Defense Counsel to Attend Neuropsychological IME

By Daniel Cummins on October 7, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Trial Court Refuses To Allow Defense Counsel to Attend Neuropsychological IME

In the case of Healey v. Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, No. 2023-CV-1793 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 2, 2024 Nealon, J.), Judge Nealon ruled, in a medical malpractice case that a defense attorney is not permitted to attend a neuropsychological examination that the defense had scheduled for a Plaintiff.

The court found that Pa. R.C.P. 4010, regarding physical and mental examinations in civil litigation matters, only grants the Plaintiff’s counsel the right to attend such an examination of the Plaintiff.

Judge Nealon noted that, “if the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania deemed it appropriate or necessary for defense counsel to have a corresponding right to attend a Rule 4010 examination, it could have stated so” in the Rule.

Given that Rule 4010 does not reference any right for a defense counsel to attend a medical examinatin set up for litigation purposes, Judge Nealon denied the defense motion in which the defense sought permission to attend the examination.
In his Opinion, Judge Nealon also cautioned that it would be inappropriate for a plaintiff’s attorney interferes with the examination or obstructs the doctor’s interview of the plaintiff, sanctions could be warranted.  The Judge also cautioned that, if the plaintiff’s attorney acted inappropriately at the examination, the plaintiff’s attorney even ran the risk of being disqualified from continuing as counsel for the plaintiff based upon the advocate-witness rule in Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Bruce Zero of the Scranton, PA law firm of Powell Law for bringing this case to my attention.

Photo of Daniel Cummins Daniel Cummins

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in…

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in the Best Lawyers in America Director every year since 2015. He is the creator and sole author of Tort Talk, a blog dedicated to discussing updates, trends, and thoughts regarding Civil Litigation Law.

Read more about Daniel CumminsEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Civil Litigation
  • Blog:
    Tort Talk
  • Organization:
    Foley, Comerford & Cummins
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo