ORCP 44

See also annotations under ORS 441.510 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Considering all circumstances, trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exclude testimony of defendant’s dental expert even though plaintiff did not receive copy of dentist’s report until morning of trial. Barry v. Don Hall Laboratories, 56 Or App 518, 642 P2d 685 (1982)

      Trial court did not abuse discretion by excluding testimony of psychiatrist, when plaintiff failed to disclose psychiatrist’s report to defendant. Morris v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 103 Or App 236, 795 P2d 1115 (1990)

      Transcript of examination that only recorded questions of defendant’s medical expert and plaintiff’s responses during examination was not detailed report of examining physician setting out findings, designations and conclusions. Smith v. CSD, 120 Or App 506, 852 P2d 957 (1993)

      Requirements of ORCP 44A and 44B do not affect requirement in ORCP 44C that plaintiff deliver to defendant, on request, copies of all written reports of examinations that are related to injuries for which recovery is sought. A.G. v. Guitron, 238 Or App 223, 241 P3d 1188 (2010), aff’d 351 Or 465, 268 P3d 589 (2011)

      Plaintiff must deliver to defendant, on request, report of any expert who examines plaintiff for purpose of litigation. A.G. v. Guitron, 351 Or 465, 268 P3d 589 (2011)

      Party seeking physical or mental examination is not required to establish that examinee’s requested limitation or condition on discovery are unreasonable. Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 297 P3d 1266 (2013)

      Examinee must establish that requested limitation or condition on discovery is supported by good cause. Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 297 P3d 1266 (2013)