Summary
The Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 applies to both plaintiffs and defendants and permits examination of a party upon a proper showing. The Court explained that the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that the party’s mental or physical condition is genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for each examination requested. Because those requirements were not adequately established here, the judgment denying mandamus was vacated and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mandamus was an available remedy to review the District Court's authority to order a mental or physical examination of a defendant under Rule 35(a).
- Whether Rule 35(a) constitutionally and statutorily permits a court-ordered physical or mental examination of a defendant.
- Whether a person examined under Rule 35(a) must be an opposing party to the party requesting the examination or need only be a party to the action.
- What affirmative showing is required to establish that the condition is 'in controversy' and that 'good cause' exists under Rule 35(a).
- Whether the pleadings and affidavit supported the broad examinations ordered in this case.
Holdings
- Under the unusual circumstances presented, the Court of Appeals had power to consider by mandamus the substantial first-impression questions concerning whether a district court could order a mental or physical examination of a defendant and whether the Rule 35(a) requirements were satisfied.
- Rule 35(a) may constitutionally and validly be applied to require a defendant to submit to a physical or mental examination in an appropriate case.
- The person to be examined must be a party to the action, but need not be an opposing party vis-a-vis the party requesting the examination.
- The 'in controversy' and 'good cause' requirements of Rule 35(a) are not satisfied by conclusory pleading allegations or mere relevance; the movant must make an affirmative showing that each condition to be examined is genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for each particular examination.
- The pleadings and affidavit did not support the broad mental, neurological, psychiatric, and internal-medicine examinations ordered, because Schlagenhauf had not affirmatively placed his condition in issue and the movants failed to make the required affirmative showing.
Key quotations
“They are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings — nor by mere relevance to the case — but require an affirmative showing by the movant 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.” (379 U.S. 118-119)
“Mental and physical examinations are only to be ordered upon a discriminating application by the district judge of the limitations prescribed by the Rule.” (379 U.S. 121-122)
Factual background
Passengers were injured when a bus collided with the rear of a tractor-trailer. Codefendants alleged that the bus driver, Robert L. Schlagenhauf, was not mentally or physically capable of operating the bus and that his vision was impaired. Based on conclusory pleadings and an attorney affidavit describing the collision, prior accident, and Schlagenhauf's observation of the truck's red lights, the District Court ordered examinations by specialists in internal medicine, ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry.
Procedural history
In a diversity negligence action arising from a bus-truck collision, codefendants sought mental and physical examinations of the defendant bus driver. The District Court ordered nine examinations without a hearing; after the Court of Appeals denied mandamus, the District Court corrected the order to require four examinations. The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' denial of mandamus and the construction and application of Rule 35(a).
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case was remanded to the District Court to reconsider the examination order in light of the Rule 35(a) guidelines formulated in the opinion and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.