Legal Opinion

Ortiz v. Examworks, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 3, 2015No. SJC 11584PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBotsford, J.

The third paragraph of G. L. c. 90, § 34M (§ 34M), the “personal injury protection” (PIP) statute, provides in part that an injured person claiming PIP benefits “shall submit to physical examinations by physicians selected by the insurer as often as may be reasonably required” in order “to assist in determining the amounts due” (emphasis added). The threshold question in this case is the meaning of the word “physicians” in this provision. More particularly, the question is whether the word “physicians” refers solely to medical doctors licensed under G. L. c. 112, § 2, or whether the term…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  3. Bratt v. International Business MacHines Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  4. Pinnick v. ClearyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  5. Board of Education v. Assessor of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Squeri v. Mount Ida CollegeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2020
  2. Burbank Apartments Tenant Association v. KargmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
  3. Commonwealth v. PalaciosMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
  4. Brown v. C2CInnovative Solutions, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2025
  5. Brown v. Wellpoint, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2025

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API