Womack v. Stevens Transport, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a psychiatric evaluation was relevant, and good cause was shown, because without it, the defense would be limited to cross-examining evaluations offered by the plaintiff's experts
• finding good cause for psychiatric IME because defense would be limited to cross-examination absent ability to develop its own evidence as to causation, an “insufficient test of truth”
• finding good cause for psychiatric IME because defense would be limited to cross-examination absent ability to develop its own evidence as to causation, an “insufficient test of truth”
• good cause existed for requested Rule 35 examination because mere cross-examination of plaintiffs expert would be an “insufficient test of truth”
• “The promulgators of Rule 35 deemed that the opportunity to cross-examine was an ‘insufficient test of truth’ and as a result, independent examinations were prescribed.”
• “The promulgators of Rule 35 deemed that the opportunity to cross-examine [the other party’s evaluations and expert reports] was an “insufficient test of truth” and as a result, independent examinations were prescribed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).