From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tidwell v. Villaman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 21, 2012
100 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-11-21

Eric TIDWELL, respondent, v. Jonathan VILLAMAN, et al., defendants, Serge A. Zaytounalian, et al., appellants.



Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York, N.Y. (John H. Shin of counsel), for appellants.

, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Serge A. Zaytounalian, G.E. Auto Repair Enterprises, Inc., and L & B Auto Repair II Corp., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated December 13, 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the plaintiff to submit to X-ray testing of his right femur in connection with a physical examination.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendants Serge A. Zaytounalian, G.E. Auto Repair Enterprises, Inc., and L & B Auto Repair II Corp., which was to compel the plaintiff to submit to X-ray testing of his right femur in connection with a physical examination is granted.

Where, as here, a plaintiff has put his or her physical condition in issue and displays symptoms that simultaneously are serious, complex, and perplexing, he or she may be compelled to undergo additional objective testing procedures that are safe, painless, and noninvasive ( see Bobka v. Mann, 308 A.D.2d 497, 498, 764 N.Y.S.2d 847;Thomas v. Mather Mem. Hosp., 162 A.D.2d 521, 556 N.Y.S.2d 720;Lapera v. Shafron, 159 A.D.2d 614, 614–615, 552 N.Y.S.2d 668), including X-ray testing ( see Louis v. Cohen, 221 A.D.2d 509, 633 N.Y.S.2d 594;Healy v. Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 145 A.D.2d 413, 535 N.Y.S.2d 404;Captain v. Kobak, 95 A.D.2d 766, 463 N.Y.S.2d 243;Castrillon v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 986, 457 N.Y.S.2d 843). In opposition to the appellants' showing that X-ray testing would assist them in ascertaining the nature and extent of the injuries claimed, the plaintiff failed to establish that X-ray testing of his right femur would be dangerous or harmful ( see Healy v. Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 145 A.D.2d 413, 535 N.Y.S.2d 404;Captain v. Kobak, 95 A.D.2d 766, 463 N.Y.S.2d 243;Castrillon v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 986, 457 N.Y.S.2d 843). Accordingly, that branch of the appellants' motion which was to compel the plaintiff to submit to X-ray testing of his right femur, in connection with a physical examination by their examining physician, should have been granted.


Summaries of

Tidwell v. Villaman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 21, 2012
100 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Tidwell v. Villaman

Case Details

Full title:Eric TIDWELL, respondent, v. Jonathan VILLAMAN, et al., defendants, Serge…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 21, 2012

Citations

100 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
954 N.Y.S.2d 579
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7984

Citing Cases

Pettinato v. EQR-River Tower, LLC

It is well settled that where a plaintiff puts her physical condition at issue, the defendant may require…

Hedgepeth v. Union Baptist Church of Brooklyn, Inc.

*905ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion to compel the…