Ore Tenus Motion to preclude Plaintiff from tak ing observers, including her attorney, to the Rule 35 examinations is hereby GRANTED. A. Procedures That May Be Conducted During the Rule 35 Examinations In this case, the United States seeks for Dr. Grossman, an orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Pasarin, a neurological surgeon, to be able to administer x-rays and MRI’s, and to take a medical history, to assess the extent of Plaintiffs damages. The Court first notes that this matter does not arise in the context of a Plaintiff-contested motion by Defendant for Rule 35 examinations. Plaintiff has already voluntarily consented to Rule 35 examinations by an orthopedic surgeon and a neurological surgeon, implicitly conceding that good cause under Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ 189 F.R.D. 620, 626 (D.Kan.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, courts refrain from “limit[ing]
holding physicianpatient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physicians supervision or acting as physicians agent holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions holding restriction of questions during examination unduly restricts physicians ability to reach medical conclusions holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients