On October 6, 2017, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Nationwide-v.-Moore.pdf">affirmed an order</a> entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, compelling Gene Moore to submit to an independent medical examination at the request of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The case stems from a motor vehicle accident involving Moore and Amy Shiock. Shiock was driving a motor vehicle insured through Nationwide, while Moore was riding his bicycle with no such policy.
Following the accident, Moore submitted his medical expenses to Nationwide which were subsequently paid. Moore also received two months of treatment from Keystone Physical Therapy until he reached his treatment plateau. Approximately one month after his release from treatment, Moore reported to Pottstown Memorial Medical Center complaining of back pain. During treatment, Moore indicated to his medical providers that moving furniture triggered his back pain.
Moore attempted to submit his Pottstown Memorial Medical Center medical bills to Nationwide as being related to the motor vehicle accident. Prior to deciding, Nationwide requested Moore undergo an IME, which he declined. Thus, Nationwide filed a petition to compel an IME based on the language in the insurance policy which requires injured persons seeking benefits to submit to medical examinations as often as “reasonably requested.” The trial court ruled in favor of Nationwide basing its decision on the petition, its exhibits, and the statutory language of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1796.
Moore filed a timely appeal arguing: (1) he was not a party to the insurance contract and therefore could not be compelled to submit to an IME; and (2) the policy provision relied upon to compel the IME is void against public policy, as it does not comply with the statutory “good cause” requirement of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1796. The Superior Court found no issue with the trial courts statutory interpretation or its finding of good cause. Moore claimed that the trial court specifically relied on <em>Fleming v. CNA Ins. Co.</em> (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) which was patently false. The trial court used a multitude of factors including the policy language and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1796 to make its decision. Further, because the trial court’s decision did not rest upon an interpretation of the Nationwide policy, the court did not need to examine Moore’s claim that the Nationwide policy violates public policy.
Thus, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Moore was required to submit to an IME under the policy. It makes sense that a claimant to an insurance policy will necessarily have to comply with the directives of that insurer in order to substantiate his/her claim. The Court's decision is consistent with that logic. Thanks to Garrett Gittler for his contribution to this post. Please email <a href="mailto:BGibbons@wcmlaw.com">Brian Gibbons</a> with any questions.