What protections are available to the injured party at an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME)?

The right to an IME is provided by the Maryland Rules in a civil case and by the Workers Compensation regulations in a worker’s compensation case.

Maryland Rule 2-423. Mental or physical examination of persons

When the mental or physical condition or characteristic of a party or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party is in controversy, the court may order the party to submit to a mental or physical examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person in the custody or under the legal control of the party. The order may be entered only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties. It shall specify the time and place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. The order may regulate the filing and distribution of a report of findings and conclusions and the testimony at trial by the examiner, the payment of expenses, and any other relevant matters.

Maryland Workers Compensation regulation 14.09.03.08 Medical examinations

1. Medical Examination Requested by a Party.

(1) A party may schedule a medical examination of the claimant with a physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist chosen by the party, by providing to the claimant and claimant’s counsel reasonable notice of the examination in writing.

(2) The party scheduling a medical examination of the claimant shall be responsible for all reasonable expenses associated with the examination.

(3) The parties shall, in good faith, attempt to resolve any differences in scheduling and scope of examination.

(4) A claimant shall appear for a scheduled medical examination.

(5) If a claimant fails to appear, refuses to submit, or fails to cooperate with the medical examination, the party requesting the examination may file an Issues form for a hearing to compel a medical examination and for reimbursement of reasonable expenses and costs.

(6) If a claimant fails to appear at, refuses to submit to, or fails to cooperate with the medical examination, without good cause, the Commission may order the claimant to attend a medical examination and order reimbursement of reasonable expenses and costs at a rate not to exceed $125 per missed examination.

1. Appearance by Examining Physician. A party requesting the appearance of an examining physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist at a hearing shall pay the appearance fee imposed by the provider.

Unfortunately, these rules are very general. In order to avoid any abuse by the doctors or the parties, a protective order may be necessary.

Maryland Rule of Procedure 2-403 Protective orders

(a)  Motion. On motion of a party, a person from whom discovery is sought, or a person named or depicted in an item sought to be discovered, and for good cause shown, the court may enter any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had, (2) that the discovery not be had until other designated discovery has been completed, a pretrial conference has taken place, or some other event or proceeding has occurred, (3) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including an allocation of the expenses or a designation of the time or place, (4) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery, (5) that certain matters not be inquired into or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters, (6) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court, (7) that a deposition, after being sealed, be opened only by order of the court, (8) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way, (9) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.

• (b)  Order. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.

There are no real Maryland cases discussing the limits of an independent medical exam pursuant to Md Rule 2-423. There is a federal district court decision as well as a Judge Niles opinion that are instructive. In addition, the case of Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010) is instructive as to what records you can subpoena from the IME doctor in order to explore bias.

Dziwanoski v. Ocean Carriers Corp., 26.F.R.D. 595 (1960) 1961 A.M.C. 297, 4 Fed.R.Serv.2d 640 Trotta v. Shell Oil Co., et al., Daily Record, November 21, 1960. Judge Niles said: ‘* * * The presence of the lawyer for the party to be examined is not ordinarily either necessary or proper; it should be permitted only on application to the court showing good reason therefor. If the attorney desires to be present in order to control the examination, that would invade the province of the physician; if he desires his observations to be the basis of cross-examination or possible contradiction of the doctor, he is making himself in effect a witness, with the difficulties which are likely to arise when an attorney asks questions on cross-examination based upon his own observations, and the possibility that he may wish to take the stand and thereby disqualify himself from completing the trial as the attorney. See Canon 19 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Maryland State Bar Association in 1948. The plaintiff is not left unprotected. The suggestion, which I adopt, that he may have his own physician present if he wishes to do so and communicates that wish to the doctor or the attorney for the other side, is in line with Klein v. Yellow Cab Co., N.D.Ohio, 7 F.R.D. 169; Mitchell v. Pure Oil Co., E.D.N.Y., 20 F.Supp. 1021; Brown v. Hutzler Bros. Co., 152 Md. 39, 136 A. 30, 51 A.L.R. 177; 17 Am.Jur. …

Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

In each case, the respective defendants designated, in pre-trial discovery, Dr. Joel Falik, M.D. (“Dr. Falik” or “Appellant”), a neurosurgeon, as a non-treating medical expert witness. The plaintiffs in each case each noted two-fold depositions of Dr. Falik: a “records deposition duces tecum” to be followed at a later date by a testimonial deposition. The notices of records deposition duces tecum requested the physician to produce certain documents regarding his past services as a medical forensic expert witness. Dr. Falik filed motions for protective orders. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

“Bias describes `the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a party.'” Pantazes,376 Md. at 692, 831 A.2d at 450 (quoting United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52, 105 S.Ct. 465, 469, 83 L.Ed.2d 450, 457 (1984)). It is well established that the fact that an expert witness is being paid to testify may bear on his or her credibility and may be revealed through cross-examination. Goldberg v. Boone, 396 Md. 94, 116, 912 A.2d 698, 711-12 (2006); Wrobleski v. de Lara, 353 Md. 509, 518, 727 A.2d 930, 934 (1999); Mezzanotte Constr. Co. v. Gibons, 219 Md. 178, 181, 148 A.2d 399, 401-02 (1959).. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

“Expert opinion testimony can be powerful evidence.” Wrobleski, 353 Md. at 517, 727 A.2d at 933. An expert’s testimony “can have a compelling effect [on] a jury.” Id. “That is why, especially with expert witnesses, `wide latitude must be given a cross-examiner in exploring a witness’s bias or motivation in testifying,’ [and,] in particular, `the cross-examiner must be given latitude to cross-examine a witness concerning any bias or interest the witness may have that would lead the witness to shade his testimony, whether, consciously or not, in favor of or against a party.'” Id. (quoting Ware v. State, 348 Md. 19, 67, 702 A.2d 699, 722 (1997)).

We described in Wrobleski the methods through which an erstwhile cross-examiner may expose the potential bias of an expert witness: Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

Exposure of potential bias based on self-interest is often attempted through cross-examination directed at how much the witness is being paid for his or her services in the case at bar, the frequency with which the witness testifies in similar kinds of cases, whether the witness is frequently employed by a particular type of party (usually plaintiff or defendant), whether the witness is frequently employed by a particular party or attorney and, if so, how much income the witness derives from that employment, and, as in this case, the amount or the percentage of the witness’s total income that is derived from lawyer referrals or testimony in lawsuits. Some forms of inquiry seek to uncover a specific and enduring relationship between the witness and the party or attorney, from which a direct bias may be inferred. Others are directed at exposing the more subtle problem of the professional “hired gun,” who earns a significant portion of his or her livelihood from testifying, and rather than having a tie to a specific party or attorney, may have a general economic interest in producing favorable results for the employer of the moment. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

We shall clarify and elaborate here our hold in Wrobleski. In Wrobleski

is generally appropriate for a party to inquire whether a witness offered as an expert in a particular field earns a significant portion or amount of income from applying that expertise in a forensic setting and is thus in the nature of a “professional witness.” If there is a reasonable basis for a conclusion that the witness may be a “professional witness,” the party may inquire both into the amount of income earned in the recent past from such services as an expert witness and into the approximate portion of the witness’s total income derived from such services. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

In other words, “[t]he relevant question is not simply whether the witness frequently appears in court but whether the witness has 1245*1245 some personal or financial incentive to produce a particular opinion.” Id. at 527 n. 5, 727 A.2d at 938 n. 5. We highlighted two caveats to our holding, however. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

First, we do not intend by our decision today to authorize the harassment of expert witnesses through a wholesale rummaging of their personal and financial records under the guise of seeking impeachment evidence. The allowance of the permitted inquiry, both at the discovery and trial stages, should be tightly controlled by the trial court and limited to its purpose, and not permitted to expand into an unnecessary exposure of matters and data that are personal to the witness and have no real relevance to the credibility of his or her testimony. Second, the fact that an expert devotes a significant amount of time to forensic activities or earns a significant portion of income from these activities does not mean that the testimony given by the witness is not honest, accurate, and credible. It is simply a factor that is proper for the trier of fact to know about and consider. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

Turning to the orders issued in the present cases, we conclude that the trial court in Holthus followed thoughtfully our guidance in Wrobleski to allow only a controlled inquiry into whether a witness offered as an expert earns a significant portion or amount of income from applying his or her expertise in a forensic nature and is thus in the nature of a “professional witness.” Although the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ordered Dr. Falik to produce portions of his tax returns and related 1099 forms, it tailored the scope of the order to those portions which referenced any payment in connection with medical legal services and to a narrow sweep of contemporary time, the two years prior to the inquiry. Similarly, the ordered production of 1099 forms was limited in scope to the proffered expert’s services as an expert witness or for work done at the request of the defendant’s insurance carrier, State Farm Insurance Company. As noted above, the trial court’s order also contained very specific confidentiality provisions to ensure that the information would not be disseminated to anyone beyond those individuals mentioned in the order. The document production ordered cannot be characterized fairly as a “wholesale rummaging” through Dr. Falik’s personal finances and financial records. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

Unlike the order in Holthus, the trial court in Hornage did not control tightly the scope of the desired inquiry consistent with what was allowed by Wrobleski. The order directed Dr. Falik to produce all income tax records from the previous three years, without limiting the records to those related to forensic services. The order contained insufficient confidentiality provisions. It stated only that the “discovered material may only be used by counsel in this matter or in other legally related circumstances” and that “the use of the discovered material should not be vulnerable to wide-spread public dissemination.” The court did not define what a “legally related circumstance” might be nor did it define what constituted “widespread public dissemination.” Unlike the order in Holthus, the order in Hornage did not prevent disclosure of the information and did not allow for redaction of sensitive or identifying information. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

The production of limited financial documents, from a contemporary and finite period of time, that reflect payments made to the witness in connection with medical-legal services is permitted because, if the inquiring party does not have access to such records, yet is permitted to inquire orally into the witness’s income stream, the inquiring party will not be able to cross-examine effectively the expert witness. Civil trial practice in this area is not dependent on articles of faith; rather, corroboration is important. Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

Appellant/Petitioner contends that Wrobleski established that the party seeking discovery must make a prima facie showing that the witness offered as an expert is a “professional witness” before it may demand the financial information allowed in Wrobleski. As noted supra, we stated in Wrobleski that “[i]f there is a reasonable basis for a conclusion that the witness may be a `professional witness,’ the party may inquire both into the amount of income earned in the recent past from services as an expert witness  and into the approximate portion of the witness’s total income derived from such services.” 353 Md. at 526, 727 A.2d at 938. In hindsight, that sentence does seem a bit circular in its expectation. Being a professional witness ordinarily means being paid to give your opinion. If an individual is testifying as a non-treating medical expert, he or she, in the vast majority of cases, presumably is being paid to do so. More specifically to the instant cases, if a physician is paid to testify about someone who is not that physician’s patient under treatment, that witness is surely a “professional witness.” … Thus, there is here no separate prima facie burden of proving that a proffered non-treating medical expert witness is a “professional witness.” Joel Falik v. James Hornage 413 Md. 163, 991 A.2d. 1234 (2010)

While a plaintiff cannot generally refuse to submit to a physical or mental examination if he or she has placed his or her physical or mental condition at issue in a case, a plaintiff can request protection from the court or limitations on the examination when the requested examination is unduly burdensome, dangerous, expensive, harassing, intrusive or oppressive. In such cases, a plaintiff can request a protective order: (1) that the examination not be had; (2) that the examination be had only on specified terms and conditions; (3) that the examination be had only by methods other than those selected by the party requesting the examination; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into during the examination or that the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters; and (5) that the examination be conducted only in the presence of persons designated by the court. A plaintiff can generally refuse to submit to multiple, successive examinations absent unusual circumstances. The purpose for limiting an examination of a plaintiff is to protect the plaintiff from physical and mental harm, from unnecessary intrusion and embarrassment, and from improper interrogation tactics by the defense.
The costs of defense physical and mental examinations of the plaintiff should be borne by the defendant as the requesting party. If the examining physician is an expert witness who will testify at trial, a report of the examination should be provided to the plaintiff. Other limits on physical and mental examinations may include the location of the examination, the duration of the examination, the scope of the examination, the nature of the examination, the credentials of the examiner, the right to counsel or witnesses at the examination, and the number of examinations the plaintiff can be subjected to.

1. Location Examination
   The general rule is that if there are competent, qualified physicians within the proximity of the plaintiff or in the jurisdiction where the suit is filed, the examination should occur in that jurisdiction. A defense attorney cannot require an injured plaintiff to travel out of state for an examination if there are competent and qualified physicians in the jurisdiction. If there are no qualified physicians in the specialty chosen within the jurisdiction, then the defense should select a physician from a forum chosen by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff is too disabled to travel to an outside jurisdiction and harm could result from being required to travel to a defense medical examination, a plaintiff cannot be compelled to do so because his or her physical safety cannot be compromised for the purposes of discovery in litigation.
2. Duration of Examination
3. Likewise, the duration of the examination must be reasonable and cannot be unnecessarily prolonged to test the endurance or stamina of an injured plaintiff.

• Scope and Nature of Examination and qualifications of examiner

1. The scope of the examination must be limited to the areas at issue in the case. Specifically, it must be limited to the areas of damages claimed by the plaintiff and the issues the plaintiff raised in the case. the demand must set out the medical examination, not a “general physical examination” as noticed, and limit it to the parts of the body which have been placed into controversy. You should object to any physical examination beyond the parts of the body which plaintiff has placed in controversy.
2. A defendant must be able to show the relevance of any requested examination, the need for any information that the examination may yield, and the importance and safety of the procedure if diagnostic testing is requested.
3. The general rule is that invasive and painful procedures will be disallowed during a defense medical examination absent a compelling need. Likewise, tests requiring administration of drugs, anesthetics, and radiation exposure are generally not allowed absent clear and convincing evidence of a compelling need for the procedure.
4. Finally, scientifically unreliable or experimental testing will not be allowed.
5. The purpose of a medical examination is to obtain medical information not otherwise ascertainable by the medical records or testing that has already been performed by a treating physician. If invasive testing has been performed and can be reviewed by a defense medical expert, courts will not subject plaintiffs to the same testing at the defendant’s request absent a compelling need. The bottom line is that the scope of any examination or testing must be reasonable and its limits must be agreed upon before the testing occurs.
6. Plaintiffs should also request that any medical examination be recorded by video, audio and a stenographer to keep a complete record of what occurs during the examination, ensuring that inappropriate areas are not inquired into.
7. Finally, the examining physician must be qualified and disclosed to plaintiff’s counsel before an examination is performed. This disclosure should not only report the name and location of the physician, but also his or her areas of expertise and qualifications for performing any requested examination.
8. The number of examinations – Repetitive and Successive Medical Examinations are not Allowed
9. the defendant is entitled “to a medical examination of the plaintiff prior to, or during, trial.” The defendant is not entitled to multiple medical and psychiatric examinations.
   While the Rules do not expressly limit the number of examinations a defendant may require the plaintiff to undergo, it also does not allow repetitive or successive examinations to be performed. The general rule is that “repetitive and harassing examinations are to be discouraged. An application for a second or further examination may be properly refused in the absence of a showing of a necessity therefor.” There is never a necessity for successive medical examinations when the defense has already performed at least one medical examination of the plaintiff and there is no assertion that the examination was inadequate, incomplete, or failed to inform the defendant of the plaintiff’s medical condition.
10. Despite the logic of this rule, in meritorious cases a defense medical examination will often result in a report favorable to the plaintiff and the defendant will seek a second or third medical examination couched in the need for an examination by a physician in a different specialty in an effort to receive a report more favorable to its position.
11. “A defendant is not entitled to have examinations made in order to search for a report which may be more favorable to such defendant.”
12. Nor is the defendant entitled to successive examinations just to have an exam performed by a physician in the same specialty as each physician who has examined the plaintiff. “There must be some limit to the number of times a defendant in a suit for personal injuries may compel the plaintiff to submit his or her body to the scrutiny of physician employed for the purpose of becoming witnesses for the defendant.

• Further, you should object in that the defendant has not specified, using precise medical names, the examination to be conducted as required by section. The physical examination must be limited to those clinical examinations which are specifically set forth in the demand or otherwise agreed to. In the above example, the defendant’s generalized reference to “a general physical and medical examination” is improper. You should thus demand that defendant serve a supplemental demand that complies with your objection.
• The defense medical expert will always try to ask the plaintiff about the accident itself. Remember that the defense medical examination is not a deposition. You should object to the scope of the examination to the extent the defendant seeks to determine causation of the injuries sustained by plaintiff due to defendant’s negligence. Assert that the plaintiff will not discuss the manner in which the subject accident occurred other than to describe it in general terms. Lastly, you should state that the defendant is entitled to a medical examination and that plaintiff will only provide information pertaining to plaintiff’s physical condition.

1. As to questions about plaintiff’s pre- and post-incident medical history, state that the plaintiff is not expected to remember or to specify with any complete degree of accuracy, a medical history. The defendant will have had the opportunity to elicit through discovery a complete medical history, including prior treatment, and to secure all relevant medical records. The Discovery Act does not provide for the taking of a medical history.
2. The medical exam statute does not contain any language permitting the defense doctor to conduct a “full medical history” examination of plaintiff. The statute’s operative term is “physical examination.”
3. allows for some doctor, nurse or other medical personnel to attend and audio record defense medical examinations. Without anyone to enforce the restrictions placed upon defense medical examinations, however, it is simply too easy for defense medical experts and defense counsel to violate plaintiffs’ rights and misrepresent what happened, at the plaintiffs’ ultimate expense.

• Have client go to the defense medical examination with a recorder that will record the length of the examination. bringing the objections and other written restrictions placed on the examination. Begin recording once you enter the office. Make sure to introduce yourself to the receptionist and to specify that you are appearing to the defense medical examination. It is a good idea to also state the date and time. When the defense doctor enters the examination room, introduce yourself again, notify him of your recorder, and give him a copy of the objections order, or stipulated restrictions, especially emphasizing that you will not be answering any questions about his or her medical history and facts of the accident. More likely than not, the defense expert will try to argue about these restrictions.

1. The potential reasons you can offer for your position are numerous, which include: you are simply enforcing your objections; the defense medical examination is not a deposition; the defense attorneys had the opportunity to provide the expert with your client’s records as they were already produced or subpoenaed; the defense attorneys had the opportunity to provide the expert with your client’s deposition; the expert should have reviewed the records and deposition; the code does not provide for the taking of a medical history; and the expert should only conduct a physical examination. In principle, you should not have to provide more than one reason, but it is always good to have various reasons in the likely event of an uncooperative defense medical examiner.

Below is a sample order for protection

Order For Protection

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for protection regarding Defendants request for Plaintiff to submit to a Physical and or mental examination;

It is hereby ordered this _____ day of ________   201     by the Circuit Court for   that:

The Plaintiff will submit to a physical exam to be performed by Dr.  M.D. at

a mutually agreed upon date and time subject to the following conditions:

1. No diagnostic test, including x-rays, may be taken of the Plaintiff and this must be an examination only, The Plaintiff will bring a copy of all of his x-rays and MRI films with him to the appointment;
2. Plaintiff will not be required to complete any forms or written questionnaires in writing or via computer online or in person;
3. The doctor will not have the right to cross-examine the Plaintiff regarding the underlying liability issues surrounding his injury, other than the fact that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident the date the accident happened and his medical complaints;
4. The doctor will not have the right to cross-examine the Plaintiff regarding prior accidents or past medical treatment and the Plaintiff will not be required to complete any at the doctor’s office,
5. Within two weeks of the examination the Plaintiff shall be provided with a report from the doctor, including all of his opinions that he may render at trial, as well as a copy of any notes taken by him
6. The doctor must be made available within thirty (30) days after receipt of his report for a 1 (one) hour deposition at his normal hourly rate (no two- hour minimum charge and no prepayment unless advanced by the Defendant) if a deposition is requested by Plaintiff’s counsel;
7. At the time of the examination, Plaintiff may be accompanied by a nurse, friend or relative whose role will be limited solely to observation. Said person will be permitted to be present in the room when Plaintiff is being examined by the doctor. Alternatively, Plaintiff may record the examination;
8. Any proposed x-rays or other tests which the examining physician anticipates utilizing will be disclosed in advance of the scheduling of the examination and will be subject to approval by the Plaintiff and counsel for the Plaintiff.
9. This exam is the only medical exam to which the Plaintiff will be required to submit to
10. Counsel for the Plaintiff is permitted to call the defense’s examining physician as an expert witness on behalf of the Plaintiff at trial
11. doctor and defense counsel will not refer to the exam he performs as an “independent medical exam”.
12. The parties agree that the Plaintiff will not be bound by the discovery deadline in the event they. wish to forward a. copy of IME Dr’ s report to Plaintiff’s experts in order.to obtain a response to be utilized at a deposition or trial-of this matter.
13. The Defendants will provide any document or writing which reflects the nature of any entity that bills for professional services performed by the deponent.
14. The Defendants will provide all contracts; writings, or agreements between this deponent and any insurance carrier, which reflects or relates to forensic activities or medical examinations of persons who are not his patients.
15. The Defendants will provide all policies, procedures, or guidelines in place of any professional office occupied by the deponent that refer, reflect, or relate to the billing procedures utilized by the deponent for forensic or IME activity.
16. The Defendants will provide all bills generated and/or issued by the deponent and/or any related entity for work done relating to the above-referenced case.
17. The Defendants will provide all records, reports, correspondence, documents, or writings supplied to the deponent in connection with the above-referenced case.
18. The Defendants will provide all reports, notes, memos, documents, or writings generated by this deponent in connection with the above-referenced case, including any drafts.
19. The Defendants will provide any and all documents which identify, refer, and/or relate to any and all patients referred to IME Dr. by the Insurance Company of the Defendant or any, division, subsidiary, or part thereof, for the purpose of performing any physical examination, independent medical examination, and/or peer or record reviews for the past ten years.
20. IME DR. will provide Plaintiff with a list of any and all depositions IME Doctor has attended and any and all times he has testified at trial within the last three (3) years to include the name of the case, case number, name of the patient examined, name, address, and phone number of the attorneys involved, and the amount of compensation IME Doctor was paid, and by whom.
21. IME DR. will provide Plaintiff with copies of any and all advertisement materials and promotional materials which reflect the services IME Doctor has offered to any attorney or insurance company.
22. The Defendants will provide any and all documents which identify, refer and/or relate.to any and all patients referred to IME Dr. by defense attorney and/or any attorney affiliated with said law firm, for the purpose of performing any physical examination, independent medical examination, and/or peer or record reviews for the past ten years.
23. A copy of the entire chart for the Plaintiffs in possession (whether actual or constructive) of IME Dr. and any notes made in the margins, or on the medical records in the chart shall be provided.
24. A copy of IME Dr. most recent CV shall be provided.
25. A copy of this Order shall be provided to IME Dr. by Defense counsel prior to the examination so there is no misunderstanding with regard to the conditions which have been placed on this evaluation.
26. The Defendant shall reimburse the Plaintiff, or provide transportation for the Plaintiff, to and from the medical examination.
27. The doctor will provide,
28. for the last two years income tax returns and copies of all 1099 forms, W-2 forms, financial statements or any other writings or documents of any kind that refer to or reflect any income to the deponent and/or those portions of his or his practices or to any entity, including, but not limited to, a corporation, partnership, or professional association at which the deponent is employed (from which the deponent derives income either directly or indirectly, referencing any payments made to the doctor or any of the above entities in connection with medical-legal services including income derived from the following areas:
29. review of records
30. testimony at deposition;
31. testimony at trial;
32. forensic activity;
33. independent medical exams (IME);
34. examinations conducted on any person not a patient;
35. preparation for IMEs, depositions, or trial;
36. research in connection with any forensic assignment.
37. Other portions of the tax returns relating to professional expenses, other earned or unearned, income and deductions are not requested,
38. all 1099’s for the past two years and other tax documents evidencing work done by the doctor which was paid by any insurance company for medical legal services, including but not limited to Defendant Insurance co
39. a list of all cases on which the doctor has worked for the past two years for Defense lawyers firm or any lawyer in that office including, but not limited to, Specific lawyer at firm, Esquire, and
40. a list of all cases on which the doctor has worked for the past two years for Insurance Company
41. IME Dr. protections ordered
42. IME Dr. may redact all identifying personal information from the documents produced, such as social security numbers and tax identification numbers.
43. Other portions of the tax returns relating to professional expenses, other earned or unearned income and deductions are not discoverable
44. IME Dr. may mark/stamp all produced financial documents “CONFIDENTIAL.”
45. For purposes of this case only, all confidential financial documents pertaining to IME Dr. provided to Plaintiff’s counsel may be reviewed only by counsel, counsel’s staff, the parties, and any expert in this case.
46. Any and all confidential financial documents produced by IME Dr. shall not be photocopied, scanned, reproduced or disseminated in any way to anyone, other than counsel in this case, the parties or any expert, and may not be utilized outside of this case. These confidential financial documents and all copies thereof will be returned to IME Dr.’s counsel by Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of a final judgment or settlement of this case. Any expert or party who receives or views confidential financial documents regarding IME Dr. shall agree in writing before receiving or reviewing same to abide by this Order and an executed copy of each such agreement shall be provided to counsel for IME Dr. by counsel for Plaintiffs promptly upon the execution thereof.
47. Any confidential documents produced pertaining to IME Dr. shall not be posted on the Internet, emailed, disseminated or communicated to any person or to any email list-serve or any similar such group or organization.

For more info on auto accidents in Maryland, CLICK HERE.