When a plaintiff alleges complex and overlapping injuries, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), psychological trauma, or cognitive impairment, defendants must have access to the right tools to fairly evaluate and defend against the claim. In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a critical procedural right for defendants: the ability to compel multiple independent medical examinations (IMEs) when justified by the nature of the injuries at issue. 

In Mazzola v. Claridge’s Co., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01918, the court reversed the lower court’s denial of a defense motion to compel an additional IME by a neuropsychologist, following an earlier IME conducted by a specialist in neurology and psychiatry. The plaintiff alleged significant psychological and cognitive injuries. The court emphasized that CPLR 3121(a) does not limit the number of IMEs a defendant may obtain and that additional examinations are appropriate when supported by necessity:

“There is no restriction in CPLR 3121(a) limiting the number of medical examinations. However, a defendant seeking an additional medical examination must demonstrate the necessity for it" (Mazzola, citing Abdelfattah v Treviacano, 204 AD3d 738).

“[T]he defendants sufficiently demonstrated the necessity for an additional IME by a specialist in neuropsychology in light of the plaintiff's allegations as to the severity of his psychological injuries and since the prior IME was not conducted by a specialist in neuropsychology.”

This decision offers much-needed appellate support to defendants in cases involving multidimensional injury allegations. In today’s product liability landscape, where claims often combine orthopedic, neurological, psychiatric, and cognitive symptoms, this ruling validates a common-sense approach mirroring the growing complexity and specialization of physicians (and attorneys): different injuries call for different specialists.

Why This Matters for Product Liability Defendants

• Claims Evaluation with Clinical Precision
  Product liability defendants and insurers are frequently faced with TBI claims that span a range of diagnoses and disciplines. A psychiatrist is not a neuropsychologist, and the two bring vastly different methodologies to evaluating cognitive function. The Mazzola decision acknowledges this and ensures the defense is not handcuffed by a rigid, one-and-done IME limitation.
• Strategic Use of Litigation Resources
  Though multiple IMEs require upfront coordination, they often lead to more cost-effective litigation by clarifying injury scope early, narrowing issues for summary judgment, or positioning a case more favorably for settlement. Investing in the right expert at the right time can significantly reduce long-term litigation spend.
• Procedural Authority to Push Back Against Restrictions
  Plaintiffs’ counsel often object to multiple IMEs on grounds of burden or duplication. Mazzola gives defense counsel the appellate authority to counter these objections, so long as the additional examination is narrowly tailored and necessary to address specific allegations.

Conclusion
Defendants are not limited to a single IME when a plaintiff’s injury claims involve multiple, medically distinct allegations. Where a plaintiff alleges cognitive injury, psychiatric trauma, and neurological dysfunction, the defense is entitled to a thorough, specialized evaluation from each relevant discipline.

At Wilson Elser, we know how to leverage case law such as Mazzola to secure critical examinations and build a defense that withstands scrutiny. If your organization is facing a product liability claim involving complex or catastrophic injuries, contact our team to learn how we can help you develop a smart, calculated defense strategy that protects your interests and controls litigation costs. 

Read the full Mazzola decision here.