Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

July 17, 2014 by admin

Trial Court erred in compelling psychological examination of plaintiff without specifying manner, conditions and scope of exam

39 Fla. L. Weekly D1438a


Torts — Discovery — Psychological examination — Although
court could properly compel plaintiff who claims damages for mental anguish
after being bitten by defendant’s dog to submit to psychological examination, it
was a departure from essential requirements of law to require plaintiff to
submit to psychological examination without specifying the time, place, manner,
conditions, and scope of the examination

CRYSTAL L. MADDOX, Petitioner, v. ROBERT J. BULLARD, Respondent. 5th
District. Case No. 5D14-303. Opinion filed July 11, 2014. Petition for
Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Lisa
Davidson, Judge. Counsel: Daniel P. Faherty, of Telfer, Faherty, Anderson &
Hawkins, PL, Titusville, for Petitioner. Elizabeth C. Wheeler, of Elizabeth C.
Wheeler, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent.
(ORFINGER, Judge.) Crystal L. Maddox seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an
order compelling her to submit to a psychological examination based on her claim
for damages for mental anguish after Robert J. Bullard’s dog bit her. She
contends that the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of
the law in requiring a psychological examination under Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.360. We grant the petition for certiorari in part, and quash the
order to the extent that it fails to comply with rule 1.360(a)(1)(B).
Rule 1.360(a) provides that an examination is authorized when the examined
party’s condition is in controversy, and the requesting party has good cause to
request the examination. The party submitting the request must affirmatively
show that “each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and
genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular
examination.” Boyles v. Mid-Fla. Tel. Corp., 431 So. 2d 627, 639 (Fla.
5th DCA 1983) (citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964)). At
any hearing on the request for compulsory examination, the requesting party has
the burden of affirmatively showing that both the “in controversy” and “good
cause” prongs have been satisfied. E.g., Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d
369, 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). In granting the request, rule 1.360(a)(1)(B)
provides that the trial court’s order for a compulsory examination “shall
specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination.”
At the hearing on Maddox’s motion for protective order, the trial court
granted Bullard’s request for a compulsory psychological examination pursuant to
the rule. However, the trial court’s order specified only the time, place, and
the name of the psychologist who would perform the examination. Although
Maddox’s counsel asked the trial court to define the boundaries of the
psychologist’s examination, the trial court declined to do so. The trial court’s
order does not specify the manner, conditions, or scope of the examination,
thereby, in effect, giving the psychologist “carte blanche” to perform any type,
and all manner, of psychological inquiry, testing, and analysis on Maddox for up
to four continuous hours. This violates clearly established principles of law,
resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See In Interest of T.M.W.,
553 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (quashing order for compelled psychological
examination of child because order did not specify manner, scope or conditions
of exam).
Bullard had the burden to establish good cause for each particular
examination. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(a)(2); Boyles, 431 So. 2d at 639. This
burden was not met since Bullard did not allege or establish good cause for the
examination that the psychologist wished to conduct. Without knowing the
particular examinations that the psychologist planned to conduct, the trial
court should not have granted Bullard’s request. For these reasons, we grant the
petition to the extent that the order compels Maddox to submit to a
psychological examination without specifying the time, place, manner,
conditions, and scope of the examination. However, we deny the petition for writ
of certiorari insofar as it asks this Court to hold that the trial court may not
compel Maddox to submit to a psychological examination. Bullard may seek a new
order that complies with rule 1.360.
Certiorari GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Order QUASHED. (SAWAYA and
WALLIS, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982