Can the Defendant in a Colorado Personal Injury Case Force the Plaintiff to Undergo a Psychological Exam?

In any personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence. For instance, if you are hurt in a car accident and require hospitalization, you must present your medical bills as proof of your damages. You may also need to waive your physician-patient privilege to the extent that your medical records are needed to prove the extent of your injuries.

Colorado Supreme Court: Rear-End Driver Cannot Put Plaintiff’s Mental Condition on Trial

That said, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that just because a personal injury plaintiff makes a “generic claim” for physical or mental damages as the result of an accident, that does not create a blanket waiver of all medical privacy rights. Nor does it allow the defense to seek medical records or information to the extent the plaintiff has not made their condition an issue in the litigation. This includes requiring the plaintiff to submit to an independent medical exam under court order.

Indeed, the state supreme court recently addressed this issue in a case, Charlson v. Pribble, where the defense sought a psychological evaluation of the plaintiff. This case arose from a rear-end car accident. The plaintiff, who was in the front vehicle, subsequently sued the driver of the rear vehicle, alleging the collision caused her to experience back pain.

In response to the lawsuit, the defendant hired two expert witnesses who opined the plaintiff’s back pain may have been the result of “psychological factors” rather than any physical injury sustained in the crash. Based on this, the defense asked the trial court to order the plaintiff undergo a psychological evaluation with one of their experts. The plaintiff refused, but the trial judge ordered the examination.

The Colorado Supreme Court, however, said that order was inappropriate. The plaintiff never placed her mental condition at issue in her lawsuit. Nor did she broadly waive her physician-patient privilege to allow the defense to examine any records unrelated to her alleged physical injuries. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the defense had no right to demand a psychological exam over the plaintiff’s objections, so it vacated the trial judge’s order.

To be clear, if the plaintiff had alleged a specific psychological injury as a result of the crash, say post-traumatic stress disorder, then the defense’s request for a psychological exam and even access to her past treatment records would have been appropriate. But the Supreme Court made clear that under its precedent, there was no “implied” waiver of medical privacy rights when making a claim for physical injuries and “generic, garden variety pain and suffering,” as the plaintiff did here.

Contact a Grand Junction Car Accident Lawyer

Even when a negligent driver’s fault is not in dispute, defendants will often try to get out of paying damages by trying to shift responsibility for a plaintiff’s injuries. An experienced Grand Junction car accident attorney can help you build a strong case to help overcome such tactics. Contact Killian, Davis & Richter, P.C., today at 970-241-0707. We serve clients in Grand Junction, Montrose and Mesa County, Colorado.

Sources:

coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/25SA281%20Order_0.pdf

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3483180588220321420

coloradopolitics.com/2026/01/05/colorado-supreme-court-reverses-jeffco-judges-order-for-fender-bender-plaintiff-to-undergo-mental-evaluation/