---
title: Bias Analysis – April 18, 2022 Motion to Compel IME Order
url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-april-18-2022-motion-to-compel-ime-order/
date: 2025-04-12T00:52:36+00:00
modified: 2026-11-06T14:06:00+00:00
lang: en_US
---

# Bias Analysis – April 18, 2022 Motion to Compel IME Order

**Historical AI analysis**
Model: ChatGPT 4o · Recorded publication date: April 11, 2025

This published AI analysis is preserved as part of Justice-Denied’s history.

[Later reporting on the April 15 / April 18 order-date distinction](https://justice-denied.org/revisiting-our-early-ai-analyses/#order-date).

![ChatGPT 4o](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png)

## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis**

After reviewing Judge Kevin Miller’s April 18, 2022 order on Defendants’ motion to compel an Independent Medical Examination (IME) and the corresponding March 25, 2022 hearing transcript, I would assess the overall bias of the order at **-6** on a scale from -10 (highly biased toward Defendants) to +10 (highly biased toward Plaintiffs), with 0 as neutral.

### Breakdown of Analysis

#### 1\. **Granting the IME in St. Cloud – Biased Against Plaintiffs (-2)**

- Plaintiffs offered multiple reasons why Marie Stevenson could not travel to the Twin Cities or even St. Cloud, including medical difficulties with long travel.
- Plaintiffs also argued for remote evaluation or finding a local examiner.
- Defendants made no showing that they attempted to locate experts in Fargo, Alexandria, or Detroit Lakes (all closer than St. Cloud).
- Despite this, Judge Miller granted the IME in St. Cloud without requiring additional inquiry into closer options.

**Bias Indicator:** Judge Miller disregarded proximity and hardship, favoring Defendants’ convenience without compelling justification.

#### 2\. **Denial of Recording – Biased Against Plaintiffs (-2)**

- Plaintiffs cited Minnesota precedent (Wood v. Chicago, 353 N.W.2d 195) allowing for recording.
- Judge Miller relied on federal authority (Tomlin) and examiner preference, even though Defendants provided no affidavit from the examiner explicitly opposing recordings.
- Plaintiff experts testified that recordings are routine and add reliability.

**Bias Indicator:** The court accepted unsupported assertions over concrete affidavits and Minnesota law favoring transparency.

#### 3\. **Exclusion of Craig – Neutral (0)**

- All parties agreed Craig would not be present. Judge Miller’s order reflected this consensus.
- No substantive bias on this issue.

#### 4\. **Denial of Expert Exclusion – Slightly Favorable to Plaintiffs (+1)**

- Judge Miller declined to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts and denied Defendants’ request for fees.
- He instead allowed a limited re-deposition of Marie if needed.
- While the Court acknowledged Defendants’ concerns, it avoided the harshest remedy.

**Bias Indicator:** This aspect was more balanced and leaned slightly in Plaintiffs’ favor, preventing extreme prejudice.

#### 5\. **Judicial Tone and Framing – Biased Toward Defendants (-3)**

- The transcript reflects a pattern: Judge Miller accepted defense counsel’s characterizations of Plaintiffs’ behavior (e.g., “self-induced restrictions”) while downplaying or ignoring Plaintiffs’ affidavits and medical evidence.
- He placed weight on Defendants’ speculation about possible influence or distraction without requiring solid proof.
- He imposed burdensome conditions on Plaintiffs without requiring Defendants to justify their preferred location, examiner, or procedures with more than generalized assertions.

### Final Score: **-6 (Moderately Biased Toward Defendants)**

This score reflects a pattern of accepting Defendants’ preferences and speculative concerns over Plaintiffs’ documented hardships and legal authority. While the denial of expert exclusion was a fair decision, the rest of the order imposed substantial burdens on the Plaintiffs based on unsubstantiated or lightly supported defense arguments.

AI Bias Indicator

Score −6

Moderately strong appearance of favoritism toward Defendants

−6

−10  −5  0  +5  +10

Favors Defendants  Neutral  Favors Plaintiffs

*AI assessment of the appearance of impartiality.*

*End of AI-generated analysisModel: ChatGPT 4o*

AI Content DisclosureThe analysis above was generated entirely or primarily by artificial intelligence.

## Source records

*Stevenson v. Stevenson*, Otter Tail County District Court, No. 56-CV-20-2928.

[Doc. 205 — complete IME order (PDF, 7 pages)](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/stevenson-doc205-ime-order-complete.pdf). Signed and filed April 15, 2022; listed in MCRO under April 18, 2022.

[Hearing transcript: March 25, 2022 — Doc. 234](https://justice-denied.org/pdfviewer/stevenson-56-cv-20-2928-doc-234/)

For records without a viewer link above, open [MCRO Document Search](https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/DocumentSearch), enter **56-CV-20-2928**, and locate the listed document numbers in the **Index #** column.

## Related reporting

- [Independent Medical Examination (IME)](https://justice-denied.org/independent-medical-examination-ime/)