Opinion
December 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
After plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars enlarging the description of his injuries and identified a specialist in vocational rehabilitation to be called as an expert to testify, inter alia, as to the problems plaintiff will encounter in procuring gainful employment in light of his injuries, defendant Schindler moved to compel plaintiff to appear for a vocational rehabilitation examination. The IAS Court denied the relief, stating that plaintiff cannot be required to submit to an examination by anyone other than a physician. Schindler moved to renew, identifying a medical doctor as the vocational rehabilitation specialist it had selected. The IAS Court nevertheless denied renewal. This was error. In view of plaintiff's intention to call an expert as to the problems he will encounter in procuring gainful employment and the claim made for the first time in his supplemental bill of particulars of lost earnings in excess of $6,000,000, defendant is entitled to an examination by a physician who is a vocational rehabilitation specialist. ( Johnson v. Moran Towing Transp. Co., 194 A.D.2d 445.) Indeed, there is no requirement that the specialist be a physician. ( Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952.)
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.