In Georgia truck accident lawsuits, a plaintiff who claims physical or mental injury can be ordered to undergo an examination by a physician or licensed psychologist chosen by the defense. This is commonly called an independent medical examination, or IME, although the examining professional is retained by the defense rather than being neutral. An IME is not automatic in every case, and it is not something a defendant can simply demand. It happens only when a court orders it under the conditions set by Georgia law.
The governing statute
Physical and mental examinations of parties are governed by O.C.G.A. 9-11-35. Under that statute, when the mental or physical condition of a party, including blood group, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order that party to submit to a physical examination by a physician or to a mental examination by a physician or a licensed psychologist.
Two requirements stand at the center of the rule. First, the condition to be examined must be in controversy. Second, the party seeking the examination must show good cause. Both of these requirements must be satisfied before a court will issue an order.
What “in controversy” means
A plaintiff’s physical or mental condition is in controversy when that condition is a genuine, disputed issue in the case. In a truck accident lawsuit, a plaintiff who alleges spinal injuries, traumatic brain injury, or other bodily harm has placed physical condition directly at issue. By filing suit and seeking damages for those injuries, the plaintiff makes the nature and extent of the injuries a contested matter. The same logic applies to mental condition when a plaintiff claims psychological harm, such as post traumatic stress, as part of the damages.
By contrast, when a plaintiff does not claim a particular type of injury, that condition is generally not in controversy, and an examination directed at it would fall outside the scope of the rule.
The good cause requirement
Good cause under O.C.G.A. 9-11-35 is a higher showing than the relevance standard that governs ordinary discovery. Georgia courts have recognized that the good cause requirement demands a greater showing of need than other discovery rules require. What satisfies good cause rests within the broad discretion of the trial judge. A defendant typically must explain why an examination is genuinely needed and why the information cannot adequately be obtained through less intrusive means, such as the plaintiff’s existing medical records and the testimony of treating physicians.
Because the decision is discretionary, outcomes can vary. A court may find good cause where the plaintiff’s injuries are serious and disputed and where the defense has no other realistic way to evaluate them. A court may decline to order an examination where the request appears cumulative, harassing, or unnecessary.
The order must specify the terms
O.C.G.A. 9-11-35 requires that an examination order be made only on motion, for good cause shown, and on notice to the person to be examined and to all parties. The order must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be conducted. This means a court does not simply authorize an open ended examination. The order defines the boundaries, including who will perform the examination and what it will cover. These specifications give the trial court a mechanism to limit the intrusiveness of the process and to address concerns a plaintiff may raise about the examiner or the procedures.
Exchange of examination reports
The statute also addresses the exchange of information. A party is entitled, upon request, to receive from the party whose condition is in issue a report of the examination, setting out the examiner’s findings, including results of all tests, diagnoses, and conclusions. When the party who was examined requests and receives the examining party’s report, that party in turn may be required to provide reports of earlier or later examinations of the same condition. This reciprocal exchange is designed to prevent one side from holding back medical findings while obtaining the other side’s findings.
Is the examination mandatory?
An IME is not mandatory in the sense of occurring in every case by default. It becomes effectively mandatory for a particular plaintiff only after a court has entered an order under O.C.G.A. 9-11-35. At that point, the plaintiff is subject to the court’s order, and Georgia courts have authority to address a failure to comply with a discovery order. But the path to that order runs through the requirements of the statute: a motion, notice, a condition that is in controversy, and a showing of good cause, followed by an order that specifies the terms.
In short, a Georgia truck accident plaintiff who places physical or mental condition at issue can be required to submit to a defense examination, but only on the conditions O.C.G.A. 9-11-35 establishes, and only when the trial court, exercising its discretion, finds those conditions met and enters an order defining the examination’s scope.
Summary
Independent medical examinations in Georgia truck accident cases are governed by O.C.G.A. 9-11-35. They are not automatic. A defendant must move for the examination, the plaintiff’s physical or mental condition must be genuinely in controversy, and the defendant must show good cause, which is a stricter standard than ordinary discovery relevance. If a court grants the motion, the resulting order must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and examiner, and the statute provides for a reciprocal exchange of examination reports between the parties.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.