The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that video recordings of an independent neuropsychological examination are not permitted under Michigan’s court rule MCR 2.311(A).
The ruling was issued in Schaumann-Beltran v. Gemmete, 2020 WL 7271068, (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2020, a case in which a traumatic brain injury was alleged. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision that it had discretion to authorize video recording as a less intrusive option to the examinee’s attorney being present during the examination, which is specifically authorized by the court rule.
The appellate court found that video recordings of the examination were not permitted by the language of the rule. “We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that plaintiff, or more specifically her counsel, be permitted to video record the examination.”
The court declined to consider whether third-party observation of a neuropsychological examination is always contrary to the interests of patients, litigants, and the practical and ethical concerns of neuropsychology generally. The appellate court panel directed that issue to the Michigan Supreme Court.
As explained by the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, a third-party observer is contrary to the neuropsychological standard of practice, invalidating the examination and its results:
Psychological and neuropsychological tests have not been standardized in the presence of involved third party observers, and thus, it is inappropriate to compare the examinee’s results to the normative results from the standardization sample. Departure from standardized testing procedures may diminish the utility of the normative data. Thus, any factor that compromises the standard administration of a neuropsychological test may jeopardize the validity and reliability of the test’s findings.
According to the Official Statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology:
The presence of a third-party observer introduces an unknown variable into the testing environment which may prevent the examinee’s performance from being compared to established norms and potentially precludes valid interpretation of the test results.
Neuropsychologist Christian Schutte Ph.D. said he welcomes the decision on video recording, but the issue of in-person observation/interference remains controversial. When a judge permits a third-party observer (TPO), most neuropsychologists are not willing to perform such an exam. By report, in one instance, a judge reversed the order permitting observation of the testing because no practitioner one would perform the examination under those conditions.
Attorneys remain caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The prevalence of traumatic brain injury claims compels independent neuropsychological examinations. Michigan’s court rule encourages the invalidation of the results of those exams when conducted in violation of the standard of practice (i.e., in the presence of a TPO).
This consequence is visited solely upon the defense during litigation because, in most cases, there is no notice or opportunity of observation of the testing and examination conducted by the plaintiff’s chosen neuropsychologist. The issue of personal observation of an examination remains alive and requires the Supreme Court’s attention.
Richard G. Szymczak is a member of Plunkett Cooney’s Torts & Litigation Practice Group who has extensive expertise in the areas of commercial litigation, including banking and real estate disputes, and the defense of complicated ...
Add a comment
- Premises Liability
- Civil Litigation
- Property Liability
- Water Loss Claims
- Residential Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- General Liability
- Fire Claims
- insurance policy
- Retail Liability
- Commercial Real Estate
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Professional Liability
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Open & Obvious
- Liquor Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Risk Management
- Independent Medical Examinations (IME)
- Business Risk Management
- Contractor Liability
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Commercial Liability
- Auto Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- No Fault Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Wrongful Death
- Real Estate
- FDA Regulations
- Food Law
- Foodservice & Hospitality
- Regulatory Law
- Constructive Notice
- Governmental Immunity
- Water Pipes Provide Evidence of Fraudulent Water Loss Claims
- Defamatory Google Review? What to Know Before Bringing Legal Action Against Anonymous Online Users for Defamation in Michigan
- Is Water the New Face of Arson?
- ‘Tis the Season for Fraudulent Water Loss Claims
- Did You Notice the Notice in Your Pending Fire Claim Notice?
- Will Insurance Pay When Others Intentionally Play Property ‘Games?’
- Thorough Pre-Litigation Investigations Form Bedrock of Dispositive Motions
- Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Insurance Agent
- Indiana Supreme Court Rules Store Managers Cannot be Held Negligent for Accidents in Which They Played no Part
- Open and Obvious Doctrine Remains Alive, but for How Long?