Court rejects argument that injured man's attorney should have been able to reveal content of insurer's IME report

Sam Ross lost his PIP dispute with Home-Owners Insurance Company.  His insurer argued that his medical problems were not related to his motor vehicle collision.  The case went to trial and Ross lost.  He appealed the outcome, arguing that if he had been allowed to reveal to jurors the content of the IME report from one of the "several" IME doctors to whom Home-Owners sent him, he would have prevailed at trial.

The Court of Appeals rejected Ross's arguments.  It held that he had no procedural right to cross-examine the expert witnesses who testified at trial with the content of the insurer's other expert physician's reports and examination findings.