Facts Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence after defendant’s vehicle struck plaintiff’s son, Kevin Oquendo (“Oquendo”). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360, defendant requested an IME, which was conducted after Oquendo’s initial surgery. Plaintiff later notified defendant that Oquendo was to have a second surgery in “the immediate future.”

“Ah, but don’t you believe them.”Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 does not require that the exam be performed in the forum county. It states only that the exam must occur at a “reasonable” place. Below are six suggestions for combatting an unreasonable objection.Take a hard look at the hardship.

Id.Justice Polston, in a related dissent, recounted the example given by Judge Lambert of the Fifth District, regarding the unequal treatment brought on by Worley,[U]nder Worley, a plaintiff law firm can refer 100 of its clients to the same treating physician, who may later testify as an expert witness at trial, without that referral arrangement being either discoverable or disclosed to the jury, yet if a defense firm sends each one of these 100 plaintiffs to its own expert to perform a CME under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360, and then later to testify at trial, the extent of the defense law firm’s financial relationship with the CME doctor is readily discoverable and can be used by the plaintiff law firm at trial to attack the doctor’s credibility based on bias. See § 90.608(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).

In this family law case, the father sought to compel the examination of the mother by a psychologist pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1). The trial court granted the motion and the mother filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Over Plaintiff’s objection, the trial court ordered that if Plaintiff was going to videotape the examination, then the defense should also be allowed to have a videographer present.Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed the order, and in so doing reaffirmed Florida case law that although the defense can require a plaintiff to submit to a compulsory medical examination pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360, defense counsel does not have the right to be present at the examination. The court reasoned that because a compulsory medical examination is an “adversarial” proceeding, a plaintiff must be afforded certain protections such as the right to privacy, the right to have counsel present, and the right to have the examination videotaped.