By custom and practice and, as a result of an agreement between the Law Society and the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO), what have come to be known as 'the usual terms' on which a plaintiff in a personal injury case, through their solicitor, consents to a medical examination taking place by a doctor on behalf of the defendant, have come to be formulated as follows:

1. The defendant's doctor will not question the plaintiff on any matters which do not have a direct bearing on the medical aspects of the case.
Under no circumstances should the plaintiff be questioned on any matters relating to the issue of liability, for example, whether the plaintiff was wearing a seat belt or not.
2. The plaintiff's doctor will attend at the medical examination by the doctor on behalf of the defendant, which shall take place at the consulting rooms of whichever doctor is agreed between them.
This is one of the terms that is more honoured in the breach than the observance. The usual procedure now is that the doctors communicate by telephone and the plaintiff's doctor furnishes his notes to the defendant's doctor to enable the latter to prepare his medical report following his examination of the plaintiff.
3. The defendant will pay a consultation attendance fee to the plaintiff's doctor at a rate agreed usually between the insurance companies and the relevant representative medical bodies for the plaintiff's doctor's attendance.
This fee is payable whether such consultation be by physical presence or on the telephone and for the furnishing of the plaintiff's notes to the defendant's doctor or whatever information he may choose to give him concerning the plaintiff's injuries and so on.
4. The defendant will pay the plaintiff's travelling, subsistence and other expenses incurred by the plaintiff in attending the defendant's examination.
In the case of a medical examination of a child, these expenses will include the attendance of at least one of the infant plaintiff's parents or guardian or some other person in loco parentis.

Such expenses may also have to include the cost of taxis where public transport might not be appropriate due either to the medical condition of the plaintiff or the inaccessibility of the plaintiff's residence to public transport.

Subsistence would include the cost of at least two, or up to three, meals depending upon the circumstances. If the plaintiff has to stay overnight for any reason (for example, the taking of x-rays or the length of the defendant's medical examination), then the overnight expenses of the plaintiff, and in the case of an infant plaintiff also of their parent or guardian, would be considered appropriate and reasonable.

Practitioners should note that the evidence of the medical advisor/doctor acting on behalf of a defendant at the trial of an action for personal injuries is confined to the issue of damages. No evidence of any statement or otherwise made by the plaintiff to the examining doctor on behalf of the defendant relating to the issue of liability should be given. This was enunciated in the Northern Ireland case of McDowell v Strannix & Anor - KBD before Sheil J on 15 February 1951 (Northern Ireland) and practitioners are recommended to read the full judgment in the case as it is important that the ratio for the decision on the issue should be clearly appreciated and understood.