What constitutes good cause for compelling a student to attend an independent medical exam (“IME”)? The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently issued an unpublished ruling in the case A.T. v. Freehold Reg’l High School. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 24-822, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59410 (D.N.J. Mar. 20, 2026) that limited a school district’s right to request such an exam during litigation.
The parents of a minor student, A.T., alleged their child was discriminated against under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the school district failed to implement the student’s IEP. The student was diagnosed with a spinal-cord malformation and immune disfunction. The parents alleged that the student was frequently reprimanded by school staff for not completing his schoolwork when he experienced pain due to his conditions. The parents, both Albanian immigrants, separately alleged discrimination based on national origin.
During litigation, the school district filed a motion to compel HIPAA releases and to compel the student to attend two independent medical examinations with an orthopedic surgeon and an immunologist. These motions proceeded from the parents’ refusal to provide HIPAA releases to the school district or consent to the IMEs. The Court granted the school district’s motion regarding the HIPAA authorizations, finding that the medical records were relevant given the allegations.
However, the Court denied the school district’s motion to compel attendance at the two IMEs. The school district argued that the IMEs were necessary to assess the student’s medical conditions, and relevant because the plaintiffs sought damages for pain, suffering, and past and future medical expenses. The parents objected, arguing there was no good cause because the student had never seen an orthopedic surgeon or immunologist, the IMEs do not address the conditions at issue, and the request for IMEs was made in bad faith.
The Court denied the motion to compel the IMEs because it was unpersuaded that the IMEs were relevant. The IMEs were found to be of little relevance because the student had never seen an immunologist or orthopedic surgeon. Further the IMEs were premature because the school district had yet to review the student’s medical records, to which the Court had just granted them access. Thus, the Court denied the motion without prejudice.
Typically, a court may compel an IME when a party places their mental or physical condition at issue and upon a showing of good cause. In this case, the Court added an extra requirement that the party sought to be compelled must have previously seen a doctor of the same expertise as the examining physician, and the requesting party must review the available medical documents prior to making the request. Neither condition is found within Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). Thus, the ruling creates a difficult standard, especially when parents refuse to provide medical records in the first instance. This decision signals that a court may place extra scrutiny on discovery demands when a minor student is involved, even when the student’s medical conditions are directly relevant to the case and the parents have refused to grant access to medical records. School districts and their attorneys may need to take greater care than is typical when selecting physicians for IMEs and drafting discovery requests.