Independent Medical Examination (IME)

Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) are intended to provide objective medical assessments in legal contexts. However, the current procedures governing IMEs often raise concerns about fairness and transparency. Issues such as the selection of examiners, the conditions under which examinations are conducted, and the rights of examinees during these assessments can lead to inconsistent and potentially biased outcomes. These procedural shortcomings not only compromise the integrity of the evaluations but also undermine public confidence in the judicial system’s ability to administer justice impartially.

In motion papers leading up to the March 25, 2022 Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination hearing, Attorney Kirsten Hansen and her assistants argued that Marie should be required to have an in-person IME in St. Cloud, in part because the only suitable examiner willing to travel (Dr. Dossa) would only travel as far as St. Cloud. (Doc. 191.) In their memorandum, Defendants stated, “justice requires that Marie Stevenson submit to an in-person examination in St. Cloud.” (Doc. 191 at 4.) Defendants also objected to Marie’s husband being present and objected to the IME being recorded.

On April 18, 2022, despite significant dietary limitations for Marie and physical limitations for her driver, Craig, which made travel difficult, Judge Miller ordered Marie to attend an in-person Independent Medical Examination (IME) in St. Cloud. (Doc. 205.) Judge Miller also ruled that Craig could not be present and that Marie’s IME could not be recorded.

Once in St. Cloud, Dr. Ken Young, not Dr. Dossa, performed the IME which lasted less than four hours. Plaintiffs later learned that Defendants had Marie surveilled for 21.75 hours by Crescent Investigative Services on the day of her 4-hour IME. (Doc. 434 at 7, 204.) No report or video was disclosed as a result of this surveillance, although Defendants attempted to get Plaintiffs to pay for it.

It should also be noted that due to the content of Dr. Young’s IME report, which supported Marie’s claims, Plaintiffs introduced the report into the record, not Defendants. (Doc. 398, Ex. F.)

On October 18, 2024, Judge Miller issued an IME-related order in a different case. (56-CV-23-1802, Christiansen Keefe vs Kronemann Construction, Inc., Doc. 43.) However, in this order, Judge Miller allowed the recording of the IME and considered travel-related difficulties.

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze the discrepancies between Judge Miller’s IME-related orders in these two cases. The specific AI query was:

I have uploaded two orders by Judge Kevin Miller, a Minnesota district court judge. Analyze and compare the two orders for any irregularities or inconsistencies.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Comparison and Analysis of Judge Kevin Miller’s Orders on IMEs

Overview of the Two Orders

  1. Order dated October 18, 2024 (Christiansen Keefe v. Kronemann Construction, Inc.)

    • The court grants the Defendant’s request for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) but permits Plaintiff to audio record all IMEs.
    • Plaintiff is not required to complete questionnaires or waivers without prior attorney review.
    • The Defendant must cover travel expenses for Plaintiff’s IME attendance.
    • Plaintiff is allowed to call Defendant’s Rule 35 examiners as witnesses if they are not used by the defense.
    • The order emphasizes fairness, transparency, and balancing the interests of both parties.

  2. Order dated April 18, 2022 (Craig Stevenson and Marie Stevenson v. Sean Christopher Stevenson et al.)

    • The court grants the motion to compel an IME for Plaintiff Marie Stevenson but denies the motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert.
    • Plaintiff Marie must travel to St. Cloud for an in-person IME despite objections regarding hardship.
    • Plaintiff is not allowed to record the IME despite arguing that recordings provide an objective record.
    • Craig Stevenson is not allowed to attend Marie’s IME, as the court cites potential interference.
    • The order strictly sides with Defendants on conditions of the IME, including the location and format.

Key Inconsistencies & Irregularities

Issue 2024 Order (Keefe case) 2022 Order (Stevenson case) Potential Irregularities
Right to Record IMEs Allowed Plaintiff to record all IMEs Denied Plaintiff the ability to record IME Inconsistent approach to fairness and transparency
Travel Requirement Defendant required to cover Plaintiff’s travel expenses Plaintiff required to travel despite objections Unequal application of travel burdens
Presence of Third Party at IME Silent on third-party presence Explicitly banned Craig Stevenson from attending Disparate reasoning—no clear standard applied
Pre-Review of Forms and Waivers Plaintiff’s attorney must review forms before IME No such provision for Plaintiff’s attorney Unequal procedural safeguards for Plaintiffs
Defendant’s Experts as Witnesses Plaintiff allowed to call Defendant’s IME examiners as witnesses No similar provision Inconsistency in handling expert testimony rights

Analysis of the Discrepancies

  1. Right to Record IMEs

    • In the 2024 order, Judge Miller acknowledged that IMEs are adversarial and explicitly ruled that the Plaintiff had a right to record the exams.
    • In the 2022 order, Judge Miller prohibited recording, citing case law suggesting that recordings compromise the integrity of psychiatric evaluations.
    • Irregularity: These orders contradict each other on the same legal issue. If recording was considered appropriate in 2024, why was it considered inappropriate in 2022?

  2. Travel Requirements

    • In 2024, the Defendant was ordered to cover the Plaintiff’s travel expenses, ensuring no undue burden was placed on the Plaintiff.
    • In 2022, the Plaintiff was required to travel despite medical hardship arguments.
    • Irregularity: The court applied different standards in determining travel burdens, favoring the Defendant in 2022 but ensuring fairness in 2024.

  3. Third-Party Presence

    • In 2022, the court explicitly prohibited Craig Stevenson from attending Marie’s IME.
    • In 2024, the issue of third-party presence was not addressed, leaving it more open-ended.
    • Irregularity: The rationale for barring a third party in 2022 was not revisited in 2024, despite both cases involving adversarial IMEs.

  4. Pre-Review of Forms & Waivers

    • The 2024 order protected Plaintiff by requiring the Defendant to submit forms for pre-review.
    • The 2022 order did not provide the same procedural safeguard.
    • Irregularity: This discrepancy suggests that one Plaintiff was given more procedural fairness than another.

  5. Calling Defendant’s IME Experts

    • In 2024, the Plaintiff was given the right to call Defendant’s IME experts as witnesses.
    • In 2022, there was no similar provision.
    • Irregularity: The court inconsistently applied rules regarding the role of IME experts in trial testimony.

Conclusion

  • Judge Miller’s handling of IME conditions varied significantly between these two orders, with the 2024 order favoring Plaintiff rights while the 2022 order imposed stricter limitations.
  • The inconsistency in the right to record IMEs, travel burdens, and procedural safeguards raises questions about the equal application of legal standards.
  • These irregularities suggest potential bias, shifting legal interpretations, or selective application of procedural fairness depending on the case.
ChatGPT 4o

q

Important Note!

The Artificial Intelligence analysis above highlights the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.

Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.

Scroll to Top