for such examinations exists. The Court agrees, in light of the nature of injuries and the extent of damages sought which remain at issue in this case. Thus, only issues for the Court to determine are whether x-rays, MRI’s, and a medical history fall within the permissible scope of such examinations. During Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ.P., examinations, courts often allow “routine procedures.” Trenary v. Busch Entertainment Corp., 2006 WL 3333621, *4 (M.D.Fla.2006) (ordering examinations to proceed according to “routine procedures”); Morton v. Haskell Company, 1995 WL 819182, *4 (MD.Fla., Sept.12, 1995) (same). Many courts have found, for example, that a review of medical history assists the doctor in his or her evaluation. See, e.g., Romano v. II Morrow, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 271, 273 (D.Or.1997) (<HOLDING>); Hertenstein v. Kimberly Home Health Care,
holding that the mother can be deemed to have waived the physicianpatient privilege only with respect to the medical history and records pertaining to the period when the plaintiff was in utero during which time there could be no severance of the infants prenatal history from his mothers medical history holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid holding restriction of questions during examination unduly restricts physicians ability to reach medical conclusions holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors