State News : New Jersey

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.

NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  

Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.

Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.

New Jersey



One of the most nettlesome questions in New Jersey workers’ compensation is whether a non-party can attend an IME and whether a petitioner or a physician can record a medical examination without the other party’s consent and use it at trial.  It is important to observe that the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act provides very little guidance on procedures regarding medical examinations other than one particular statutory provision which allows only an employee’s personal physician to attend an independent medical examination. 

The New Jersey Appellate Division in Kathleen DiFiore v. Tomo Pezic, A-2826-20, A-0367-21, A-1331-21, (App. Div. May 3, 2022) recently set down some very clear rules on recording and attendance for defense medical examinations.  The case focused on Rule 4:19 Physical and Mental Examination Of Persons. That civil court rule provides as follows:

In an action in which a claim is asserted by a party for personal injuries or in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the adverse party may require the party whose physical or mental condition is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by the medical or other expert by serving upon that party a notice stating with specificity when, where and by whom the examination will be conducted and advising, to the extent practicable, as to the nature of the examination and any proposed tests.

In civil court these exams are officially called DMEs (defense medical examinations), although litigation attorneys generally refer to them as IMEs as they are also called in workers’ compensation. The Court discussed prior New Jersey cases that have weighed in on various aspects of DMEs and departed from them to some extent.  The Court first observed that a DME is “… not an adversarial proceeding inevitably designed to disprove claims of injury and trap plaintiffs into admitting or showing their claims are exaggerated or fabricated.”  Rather, the Court said that the DME is a professional assessment that must adhere to the standards of the examiner’s profession. The Court also added, “Nor is the DME, as defendants tend to portray it, always a purely objective exercise unaffected by any conscious or subconscious biases of the examiner.  The examiners tend to be hired repeatedly by insurance companies and defense firms, with the expectation the examiners will assist the defense, if needed, as witnesses at trial.” The similarity of DMEs to IMEs is obvious.

The Appellate Division in the DiFiore case established some basic rules in regard to recording of a DME and third-party attendance.  “First, a disagreement over whether to permit third-party observation or recording of a DME shall be evaluated by trial judges on a case-by-case basis, with no absolute prohibitions or entitlements. . . . The trial court must balance the competing advantages and disadvantages tailored to the particular case.”

The Court added that the expert who performs the DME “does not have the right to dictate the terms under which the examination shall be held.”  The court noted that if the expert does not wish to proceed with the exam on the conditions imposed by the court, the examiner can withdraw from the examination.

The Court emphasized that to record an examination, the plaintiff must make a request and there must be consent to the request.  To that extent the DiFiore Court departed from the Carley case.  “Second, despite contrary language in Carley, we hold that, going forward, it shall be the plaintiff’s burden to justify to the court that third-party presence or recording, or both, is appropriate for a DME in a particular case, absent consent to those conditions.”  

Next the court suggested that technological advances make recording rather easy.  “We take judicial notice that with the pervasive use of pocket-sized smart phones as cameras and audio recorders, they can be unobtrusively placed on a tripod with minimal effort.”

The Court also addressed the presence of third parties in the examination. “… If the court permits a third party to attend the DME, it shall impose reasonable conditions to prevent the observer from interacting with the plaintiff or otherwise interfering with the exam.”

With respect to psychological examinations, the Court concluded that there is no reason to treat psychological examinations differently than physical examinations with respect to recording the examination or having third parties present.  “We also discern no reason to favor or disfavor third-party presence or recording for neuropsychological (or any other ‘mental’) DMEs as opposed to other specialties.”

Lastly, the Court stated that if an interpreter is needed for the exam, the examiner shall utilize a “neutral interpreter” agreed upon by the parties.

As all practitioners and judges well know, New Jersey is a state in which only one party has to consent to a recording.  Why then did the Appellate Division devote 44 pages to this important decision? It is important to understand that the consequence of the DiFiore decision is that without a request for a recording and without consent, the recording will not be permitted to be used at trial.  The point of this case is that if a party wishes to record an exam and use the recording at trial, the party must make an initial request. The same is true of a request to have a third party present in the examination. 

These rules are sensible.  The fundamental ruling in this case is that a request must first be made by the plaintiff to record the exam or to have a non-party attend the exam. Consent to the recording or attendance by the respondent or IME physician will resolve the issue.  Few cases will likely require a Judge to rule on the issue.

As mentioned above, the DiFiore case emerged from civil litigation. It did not involve a workers’ compensation case.  This issue will eventually get to the Appellate Division on appeal from the Division of Workers’ Compensation and will probably focus on a non-consensual recording of an IME that counsel attempts to use at trial.  Respondent will object based on DiFiore and an appeal will likely follow.  This practitioner expects that the Appellate Division will evaluate this issue exactly as it did in DiFiore



John H. Geaney, Esq., is a Shareholder and Co-Chair in Capehart Scatchard's Workers’ Compensation Group.  Mr. Geaney concentrates his practice in the representation of employers, self-insured companies, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mr. Geaney at 856.914.2063 or by e‑mail at