§
Subdivision 1.Medical examinations and discovery of condition of claimant.
Any person with respect to whose injury benefits are claimed under a plan of reparation security shall, upon request of the reparation obligor from whom recovery is sought, submit to a physical examination by a physician or physicians selected by the obligor as may reasonably be required.
The costs of any examinations requested by the obligor shall be borne entirely by the requesting obligor. Such examinations shall be conducted within the city, town, or statutory city of residence of the injured person. If there is no qualified physician to conduct the examination within the city, town, or statutory city of residence of the injured person, then such examination shall be conducted at another place of the closest proximity to the injured person's residence. Obligors are authorized to include reasonable provisions in policies for mental and physical examination of those injured persons.
If requested by the person examined, a party causing an examination to be made shall deliver to the examinee a copy of every written report concerning the examination rendered by an examining physician to that person, at least one of which reports must set out in detail the findings and conclusions of such examining physician.
An injured person shall also do all things reasonably necessary to enable the obligor to obtain medical reports and other needed information to assist in determining the nature and extent of the injured person's injuries and loss, and the medical treatment received. If the claimant refuses to cooperate in responding to requests for examination and information as authorized by this section, evidence of such noncooperation shall be admissible in any suit or arbitration filed for damages for such personal injuries or for the benefits provided by sections 65B.41 to 65B.71.
The provisions of this section apply before and after the commencement of suit.
§
Subd. 2.Claimant's participation in arbitration between obligors.
Any person receiving benefits under sections 65B.41 to 65B.71 shall participate and cooperate, as reasonably required under the coverage, in any and all arbitration proceedings as provided in section 65B.53 by or on behalf of the obligor paying the benefits, and the obligor may require in the furnishing of proof of loss the claimant's statement that the claimant shall so participate and cooperate as consideration for the payment of such benefits. However, no claimant may be required by any obligor which has paid or is obligated to pay benefits as herein provided to personally attend an arbitration proceeding which shall take place more than 50 miles from the usual residence of the claimant; and provided that in no event shall the claimant have to attend such an arbitration proceeding if, at the time scheduled for that meeting, travel thereto by the claimant is not recommended by a physician treating the claimant for injuries. Any claimant required to personally attend an arbitration proceeding shall be compensated by the reparation obligor requiring attendance for actual income loss and expenses reasonably incurred.
Notes of Decisions
W. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 797 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 22× “1, and the insured-claimant is obligated to cooperate in the investigation of the claim, Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1. The No-Fault Act provides for mandatory arbitration of all claims of $10,000 or less.”
Neal v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 529 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 20× “The trial court vacated the arbitration award, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by determining a legal issue, and the decision was contrary to Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1 (1994). Neal appealed and the court of appeals remanded the matter to the arbitrator…”
Weaver v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 609 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 10× “” Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1 (1998). The statute explicitly requires that the IME request be reasonable.”
Neal v. State Farm Ins. Co., 509 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 17× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1, permits the insurer to include reasonable provisions in its insurance policy concerning physical examinations, but the underlying insurance policy in the present case was not in evidence, so the arbitrator has no way of knowing what reasonable…”
Hovland v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 593 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 20× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1 (1998). This case asks us to determine whether a no-fault insurer must first pay all outstanding economic loss claims before it is entitled to have the insured examined by a physician of its choice.”
Ortega v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 474 N.W.2d 7 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “1 (1990), which provides: Any person with respect to whose injuries benefits are claimed under a plan of reparation security shall, upon request of the reparation obligor from whom recovery is sought, submit to a physical examination by a physician or physicians selected by the…”
United States v. Carlos Luna, 968 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2020).
“Minn. Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1. But absent a red flag suggesting possible fraud, insurance companies typically pay their bills because they assume that they can trust what providers send them.”
W. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 781 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 2 (2008). We have held that “[ujnder no-fault, when an insured obtains a policy, the no-fault coverage is limited by the terms of the policy, which must comply with the requirements of the no-fault act.”
Wolf v. State Farm Ins. Co., 450 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1. Assuming State Farm meets its burden on retrial with Smookler’s deposition testimony, the burden may then shift to Wolf to establish her entitlement to benefits.”
Saari v. Litman, 486 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “American Family required appellant to submit to a medical examination pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 65B.56, subd. 1 (1990). Respondent examined appellant on two occasions and submitted a medical report to American Family, which contained his conclusions and opinions based on the…”
Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 474 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Any person with respect to whose injury benefits are claimed under a plan of reparation security shall, upon request of the reparation obligor from whom recovery is sought, submit to a physical examination by a physician or physicians selected by the obligor as may reasonably be…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.