Bowden v. Corizon Inc et al
ORDER denying 69 Motion for Medical Examination. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 1/30/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JOHN MICHAEL BOWDEN,
CORIZON, INC., et al.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Physical Examination (Doc. No.
69). Defendants filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 77).
In support of his Motion, Plaintiff states an independent medical examination is necessary
for him to prove that Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference in failing to treat his rectal
abscess. Plaintiff cites to FED.R.CIV.P. 35 as providing for appointment of an independent physical
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request, stating that although the Court granted Plaintiff in
forma pauperis status in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), that statute does not authorize
payment for the requested medical examination. Defendants also provide copies of Plaintiff’s most
recent medical records to show that his condition is healing well and he was released from his
surgeon’s care. (Doc. No. 77-1.)
Initially, the Court notes that FED.R.CIV.P. 35 does not apply to support Plaintiff’s request,
because it deals with cases where one party asks to have another party examined, after the latter party
has placed his physical or mental state in issue. Instead, that Rule would apply if Defendants were
to request that Plaintiff be examined, based on Plaintiff’s allegations of inadequate medical care and
treatment. In addition, Defendants are correct that the Court is not required to pay for an
independent medical examination, and Plaintiff does not identify a statutory basis which would
require the Court or the Defendants to fund an expert’s examination and report. See Hayles v.
Jarriel, No. 6:10-cv-31, 2010 WL 5069870 (S.D.Ga. 2010), and Wilkerson v. United States, Civil
No. 4:CV-07-2228, 2009 WL 1045865 (M.D.Pa. 2009). Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Physical Examination (Doc. No.
69) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2012.
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?