Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Day on Torts
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Day on TortsVideotaping of Rule 35 Exams
By John A. Day
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff has a right to videotape a Rule 35 examination (often mistakenly referred to as an "independent medical exam").
The Court's conclusion:
"Our decision to allow an examinee to videotape a court-ordered independent examination was foreshadowed by our decision in McCullough v. Mathews, 1995 OK 90, ¶¶1-2, 918 P.2d 25. In McCullough we recognized that the broad language of 12 O.S. 2001 §32352allows the examinee to bring a third party representative to a court-ordered independent examination. We also determined that in addition to handwritten notes, audiotaping by the examinee, which was incorporated into the statute by the 2001 recodification of §3235, would be allowed as a "condition" of the examination. While audio recording is capable of providing proof that the examination did not involve a malingering patient or a cursory examination, we now hold that a video recording may be a superior method of providing an impartial record of the examination. Accordingly, a party to a lawsuit who is required to submit to a medical examination pursuant to 12 O.S. 2001 §3235 is permitted to videotape the examination." [Footnotes omitted.]
The case is Boswell v. Schultz, No 104840 (Ok. S.Ct. 12/12/07). Read the opinion here.
Full post as published by Day on Torts on January 23, 2008 (boomark / email).
Copyright Lawsuits: Critical Issues Before Filing Copyright
Federa Rule 11(b) Considerations

Is videotaping interrogations a better solution
The Only Thing Missing Are Sen. Obama's Election Law Exams
Videotaping Independent Medical Exams
Weighing in on Law School Exams: Two Cents from a 1L Professor









