Published by Arfaa Law Group
A medical malpractice lawsuit can force an injured patient to undergo another examination, this time at the defense’s request. That prospect raises immediate questions about privacy, physical discomfort, and how far discovery should reach. A recent federal ruling in Maryland confronted those concerns when the defense sought a flexible laryngoscopy to examine claimed vocal cord paralysis. If a surgical injury has disrupted your breathing, voice, or daily life, speak with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about protecting your rights during the claim process.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiff consulted a surgeon about the thyroid gland in September 2023 and underwent a total thyroidectomy the following month. After surgery, the plaintiff experienced respiratory distress and stridor, a high-pitched sound associated with a narrowed or obstructed upper airway. The surgeon ordered reintubation approximately three hours later. Following extubation two days afterward, the plaintiff continued to experience intermittent stridor, swallowing difficulty, and a weak voice while receiving intensive care.
It is alleged that breathing problems continued after discharge and interfered with sleep. A second physician found that both vocal cords lacked movement and urged the plaintiff to obtain a tracheostomy to secure the airway. The plaintiff underwent that procedure in February 2024 and maintained that the vocal cord paralysis would likely be permanent. The plaintiff and spouse then pursued medical malpractice claims against the surgeon and surgical practice.
Reportedly, the plaintiff’s treating physician became an expert witness and performed flexible videostroboscopy seven times between February 2024 and April 2025. The procedure passes an endoscope through the nose to view vocal folds and uses a strobe light to show vibrations in slow motion. The defendants sought an examination by their expert using flexible laryngoscopy without the strobe. The plaintiffs objected as invasive.
Physical Examinations in Medical Malpractice Cases
Although this was a discovery order rather than an appellate decision, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The rule permits a compelled physical examination only when the person’s condition is in controversy and good cause supports the examination. Relevance alone does not satisfy those heightened requirements because a physical examination can seriously intrude on privacy. The moving party must affirmatively establish need, and the analysis requires a fact-specific balance between that need and the procedure’s burdens.
The plaintiff did not dispute that the condition of the vocal cords was in controversy. The defendants argued that their expert needed to observe the cords to assess the plaintiff’s expert’s findings, determine whether the condition had changed since April 2025, evaluate airway compromise linked to the claimed nerve injury, and identify any muscular compensation. The plaintiffs characterized the examination as invasive and emphasized the adversarial setting, but they proposed no noninvasive alternative capable of providing the same information.
The court found good cause. The plaintiff had undergone a comparable procedure seven times, while the proposed examination would use topical anesthetic and last about five minutes. The absence of a doctor-patient relationship did not defeat the request because independent examinations arise in adversarial litigation. The plaintiffs accepted the need for some examination and the selected expert. Finding no less intrusive method for a meaningful evaluation, the court ordered flexible laryngoscopy.
Contact a Baltimore Surgical Malpractice Attorney at Arfaa Law Group for Guidance
Medical malpractice litigation can involve sensitive examinations as well as complex medical proof. If you or someone in your family suffered breathing, vocal cord, or other serious complications after surgery in Baltimore or elsewhere in Maryland, the medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can assess the care and explain the litigation process. Call Arfaa Law Group at (410) 889-1850 or reach the firm through its online contact form to schedule a free, confidential consultation.