[DOWNLOAD] "Edward Goldman v. Irving Linkoff" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: Edward Goldman v. Irving Linkoff
Author : Supreme Court of New York
Release Date : January 03, 1974
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 60 KB

Description

Order of May 3, 1973, reversed, the above-mentioned original motion is granted to the extent that plaintiff is directed to submit to a neurological examination by the physician designated by defendant for that purpose and to submit to the taking of X rays by the physician designated by defendant for that purpose; the X rays shall be made available to plaintiff for inspection and a copy of the report made in connection with the X rays shall be furnished to plaintiff without charge to him; and this determination shall not be construed to require plaintiff to submit to a physical invasion of his body by a procedure in the nature of a myelogram. Appeal from so much of order of October 19, 1973 as denied defendants renewed request for a neurological examination and a further physical examination dismissed as academic in view of the decision herein on the appeal from the order of May 3, 1973; and otherwise the order of October 19, 1973 is affirmed. Defendant is awarded a single bill of $20 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Plaintiff had been receiving treatment from defendant, a chiropractor, and on November 24, 1971 he allegedly sustained injuries during such treatment. Various severe injuries, including neurological ones, were claimed in plaintiffs bill of particulars. Thereafter, plaintiff was examined by a doctor chosen by defendant. Plaintiff asserted, however, that the rules relating to exchange of medical information did not require defendant to permit plaintiff to examine X rays which a doctor chosen by defendant would take. Accordingly, plaintiff refused to submit to X-raying. Further, this doctor also wanted plaintiff to submit to a neurological examination by another doctor, but plaintiff also refused this, claiming that one examination would have to suffice. It was error not to grant defendants motions regarding X rays and the neurological examination. [45 A.D.2d 709 Page 710]