Under Georgia law and the Civil Practice Act, a defendant may request a physical or mental examination of the plaintiff when the plaintiff’s physical or mental condition is genuinely in controversy. The examination must be conducted by a licensed examiner, and the plaintiff is entitled to receive a copy of the examiner’s written report. The plaintiff’s attorney does not have the right to be present in the examination room during the physical examination, but the scope, timing, and conditions of the examination can be negotiated or litigated. The IME physician’s qualifications, methodology, and prior relationship with the retaining insurer are appropriate subjects of deposition and cross-examination. Georgia courts have addressed whether a plaintiff may audio or video record the IME, with most courts leaving the decision to the trial court’s discretion. Plaintiffs frequently request recording as a condition of submitting to the examination, and defense counsel may resist. The issue is particularly contested when the IME involves neuropsychological testing, where the examiner argues that recording would compromise the validity of standardized tests. IME reports are frequently the primary battleground in cases involving disputed injury causation or the extent of permanent impairment. Effective cross-examination of the IME physician focuses on: the percentage of the physician’s professional time devoted to defense examinations versus patient care, the physician’s financial relationship with the retaining insurer (total fees received annually), the physician’s track record of findings favoring the defense, and any standardized examination protocol deviations. Deposing the IME physician before trial to establish these patterns is standard practice in Georgia personal injury litigation.
97.1. What showing must a Georgia defendant make to obtain a court-ordered physical examination of the plaintiff?
The defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff’s physical or mental condition is genuinely in controversy, meaning the plaintiff has placed their condition at issue through their claims for damages. The defendant must also show good cause for the examination, which requires more than a bare assertion that the examination is needed. The motion must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, and the proposed examiner must be appropriately licensed and qualified. In most personal injury cases where physical injuries are alleged, the in-controversy requirement is easily met.
97.2. Can a Georgia plaintiff record an IME, and what are the rules governing audio or video recording of the examination?
Georgia law on recording IMEs is not uniformly settled across all judicial circuits. Some courts permit the plaintiff to have a third party present to observe or record the examination, while others do not allow recording over the defendant’s objection. The plaintiff should seek a court order permitting recording if desired, and the defendant may oppose the request. Courts that allow recording typically require that the recording not interfere with the examination and that the recording be made available to both parties. The issue is frequently resolved through negotiation between counsel.
97.3. How does Georgia handle disputes about the scope of an IME when the examining physician plans to conduct tests beyond what was disclosed?
The plaintiff can seek a protective order limiting the scope of the examination to the specific tests and procedures identified in the defendant’s motion or agreed upon by the parties. If the examining physician plans to conduct additional tests, invasive procedures, or evaluations beyond what was authorized, the plaintiff can refuse to submit to the unauthorized portions and seek court intervention. The examination must be reasonably related to the injuries claimed, and the court can restrict the scope to prevent harassment, unnecessary testing, or examinations that exceed the legitimate needs of the litigation.
97.4. What discovery is available about the IME physician’s prior relationship with the retaining insurer in Georgia?
The plaintiff can discover the frequency with which the physician conducts examinations for the specific insurer, the total income the physician receives from defense medical examination work, the percentage of the physician’s practice devoted to litigation evaluations versus clinical treatment, and any pattern of consistently favorable findings for the party that retains the physician. This information is relevant to the physician’s potential bias and is a legitimate subject of deposition questioning and cross-examination at trial.
97.5. How does Georgia treat IME reports that were prepared by physicians who reviewed records only without examining the plaintiff?
Record-review opinions are treated differently from examination-based opinions because the physician did not have the opportunity to physically evaluate the plaintiff’s condition. A physician who reviewed records without examining the plaintiff may testify as an expert offering opinions based on the documentary evidence, but the weight of their opinions may be diminished in comparison to physicians who actually examined the patient. The distinction between a record review and a physical examination is relevant to the credibility and persuasiveness of the expert’s opinions.
97.6. Can a Georgia plaintiff obtain the IME physician’s examination notes and underlying materials beyond the final report?
The plaintiff is entitled to receive the examiner’s written report under the Civil Practice Act and may also seek production of underlying notes, raw test data, scoring sheets, and any other materials used in preparing the report. Discovery of these supporting materials is typically available upon request because they form the foundation for the expert’s opinions and are necessary for the plaintiff’s attorney to prepare effective cross-examination. Withholding underlying materials may support a motion to exclude the IME testimony.
97.7. How do Georgia courts evaluate motions to exclude IME testimony based on the physician’s methodology or qualifications?
Georgia courts apply expert testimony standards that evaluate whether the physician’s methodology is reliable, whether the physician is qualified to opine on the specific injuries at issue, and whether the physician’s opinions are based on sufficient facts and data. Challenges to IME testimony may focus on the examiner’s failure to review all relevant medical records, reliance on an incomplete or biased examination, use of methodology not accepted in the relevant medical community, or lack of qualifications in the specific medical specialty involved.
97.8. How does the IME report interact with the plaintiff’s treating physician testimony in a Georgia trial on disputed medical causation?
The IME report is typically offered by the defense to counter the treating physician’s opinions about the cause of the injuries, the extent of impairment, the prognosis, and the need for future treatment. The jury weighs both experts’ opinions, considering the treating physician’s longitudinal relationship with the patient and firsthand knowledge of the clinical course against the IME physician’s independent evaluation and potentially broader forensic experience. The credibility battle between the treating physician and the IME physician is often the most consequential evidentiary contest in disputed medical causation cases.
Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this material. Georgia law is subject to change through new legislation and court decisions. Always consult a qualified Georgia attorney for advice specific to your situation.