Looney v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
1Opinion of the Court
*265MEMORANDUM AND FIRST ORDER ON AMTRAK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR RULE 35 PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (# 15)
COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.
After a review of the cases cited and consideration of the oral arguments of counsel, it is ORDERED that Amtrak’s Motion For An Order For Rule 35 Physical Examination (# 15) be, and the same hereby is, ALLOWED. Although it is indeed true that the defendant does not have an absolute right to choose the doctor who will perform the examination, cases have held that absent a “valid objection” to the physician defendant chooses, defendant’s choice is to be…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stinchcomb v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
- Timpte v. District Court in and for City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1966
- Liechty v. Terrill Trucking Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1971
- Stuart v. BurfordDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1967
- Pierce v. Th. Brovig of FarsundDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Tomlin v. HolecekDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1993
- Simpson v. University of ColoradoDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2004
- Sexton v. BatesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2001
- O'Sullivan v. StateDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
- Powell v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.