Plaintiff’s Conditions for Defense Medical Examination

Below is a sample opposition we filed in an Anne Arundel County car accident case after the defense tried to force our client to attend a so-called independent medical exam with a Washington doctor who was outside Maryland’s practical subpoena reach. The question is if the defense picks a doctor who is hard to subpoena and unlikely to produce financial records and bias materials, what should the court do?  Because that creates a real fairness problem for the plaintiff.

This is not a minor procedural fight. Defense medical exams are often built around one goal: creating testimony from a paid doctor who will minimize the plaintiff’s injuries. If the defendant wants to use that doctor, the plaintiff should have a fair chance to obtain the doctor’s records, financial information, and prior witness history for cross-examination.

Sample Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Medical Exam

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

ANNA MARIE MURPHY
Plaintiff

v.

DOUGLAS CHERVENAK, et al.
Defendants

Case No.: C-25-CV-25-000803 MT

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Medical Exam

Plaintiff, Anna Marie Murphy, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr. and Miller & Zois, LLC, respectfully request that Defendant Douglas Chervenak’s Motion to Compel a Medical Exam be denied, and in support states as follows:

I. Facts

This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 14, 2025 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

On January 14, 2026, defense counsel sent correspondence unilaterally scheduling a defense medical exam for February 9, 2026, without first consulting plaintiff’s counsel and without providing reasonable advance notice.

Plaintiff’s counsel objected on February 3, 2026, on the ground that the proposed examining physician, Dr. Bruce Kennison, practices in Washington, D.C. and is outside the effective subpoena power of this Court for purposes of securing necessary bias and financial records.

In an effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention, plaintiff’s counsel asked whether Dr. Kennison would voluntarily agree to produce the financial information and related documents that would ordinarily be sought through a subpoena duces tecum.

Defense counsel responded that she had attempted to contact Dr. Kennison regarding that request but had not received a response.

As of the filing of this opposition, plaintiff’s counsel had still received no assurance that Dr. Kennison would voluntarily produce the records necessary for meaningful cross examination.

II. Argument

The defense wants the benefit of a medical exam by a physician of its choosing, but without the corresponding burden of making that physician meaningfully available for discovery.

That is not how this should work. Dr. Kennison practices in Washington, D.C. Although he resides in Maryland, he has historically been difficult to serve. In practical terms, the defense has selected a doctor who can be used as a witness while remaining insulated from ordinary discovery into bias, compensation, and prior expert activity.

That matters. A plaintiff facing a defense medical exam should be able to test the credibility of the examining doctor, including:

• how often the doctor performs defense exams

• how much money the doctor earns from litigation work

• how often the doctor testifies for defendants

• what records the doctor reviewed

• what reports the doctor has generated in similar cases

Without access to those materials, the plaintiff is denied a fair opportunity to cross examine the doctor on bias.

The defense also complains that plaintiff’s objection to the exam came too late. But no court order had been entered compelling the examination under Maryland Rule 2-423, and the defense chose to schedule the exam unilaterally. More importantly, the defense selected a physician whose location and service issues create an avoidable discovery problem.

There are many qualified doctors in Anne Arundel County and throughout Maryland who could perform the exam. The defense did not need to select a physician practicing in Washington, D.C. who may refuse to produce the documents that would allow the jury to understand his financial stake in this type of work.

This is exactly why plaintiffs object to these arrangements. Defense lawyers repeatedly use the same doctors for the same purpose because those doctors know how to generate opinions that help the defense. If that is going to happen, the plaintiff must be allowed to fully expose the doctor’s bias.

The Court should deny the motion.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Medical Exam.

Miller & Zois, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Laura G. Zois
1 South Street, Suite 2450
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 779-4600
Attorneys for Plaintiff

---

Proposed Order

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

ANNA MARIE MURPHY
Plaintiff

v.

DOUGLAS CHERVENAK, et al.
Defendants

Case No.: C-02-CV-25-000853 MT

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Medical Exam, and any opposition thereto, it is this ___ day of __________, 2026, by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Medical Exam is DENIED.

Why We Fought This Exam

The defense position in these cases is usually predictable. They want their doctor. They want their report. They want their testimony at trial. What they do not want is meaningful discovery into how much money the doctor makes doing defense work. We care because juries care.

That is the real fight. If the defense wants to send our client to a doctor for an exam, fine. But then we want the documents that show how often that doctor works for defendants, how much he earns from this work, and how often he says injured people are not really hurt. That is basic fairness.

Picking a doctor outside Maryland, especially one who is difficult to subpoena, is not an accident. It is strategy.

The Maryland Law on Independent Medical Exams

Maryland law allows physical or mental examinations in some circumstances, but defendants do not get unlimited freedom to structure those exams however they want. Courts are supposed to balance the defendant’s discovery rights against the plaintiff’s right to fair treatment and full cross examination.

The issue is not just whether an exam can occur. The issue is whether the plaintiff has a realistic way to challenge the credibility of the doctor doing the exam.

That is where these motions often get interesting.

Related Resources

More Resources

1. • Hornage v. Falik (Maryland Supreme Court opinion, argued by our lawyers, that sets forth the standard for what is discoverable)
   • More Information on Independent Medical Exams (overview and links)
   • Cross-Examining an IME Doctor (advice on questions you can ask an independent medical exam doctor and score points)
   • Can an IME Doctor Commit Malpractice on a Patient?
   • Anatomy of a Maryland Personal Injury Lawsuit (the lawsuit step-by-step)
   • Videotaping Independent Medical Exam (analysis of the strategy of videotaping an IME)
   • Videotaping Independent Medical Exams # 2 (more analysis and recent OK ruling)
   • Sample Independent Medical Exam (example report from an IME in a truck accident case)