 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newton v. Ceasar6/29/2000
is also silent on whether the defendants had an opportunity to object to the doctors chosen by the court. If the defendants are to bear the expense of the examination, they should be given the chance to elect whether to go through with the examination or to withdraw their motion.
The final question is whether this case merits a review under the narrow scope of Rule 10, Tenn. R. App. Proc. Rule 10 allows immediate review of an interlocutory order of the trial court only under two circumstances:
(1) if the lower court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review, or
(2) if necessary for complete determination of the action on appeal as otherwise provided in these rules.
We think that this case satisfied the first requirement, the departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. It is one thing to deny the defendants' motion for the plaintiff to undergo a medical examination by doctors chosen by the defendants, but it is another to order an examination at the defendants' expense by doctors chosen by the court.
The lower court's order is reversed and we remand the cause to the Circuit Court of Lawrence County for further proceedings. Tax the costs on appeal to the plaintiffs, Michelle R. Newton and Timothy W. Newton.
|