Winslow v. Montana Rail Link, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed a petition for supervisory control concerning a psychiatric examination under Rule 35, M.R.Civ.P., in a case involving an independent claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court held that pleading the independent emotional-distress claim established good cause for a mental examination, but that the district court was required to specify the examination's time, place, manner, conditions, and scope in advance. The matter was remanded for entry of a compliant examination order.

Holdings

1. The pleading of an independent claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress is sufficient to place the plaintiff's mental condition in controversy and satisfy Rule 35's good-cause requirement for a mental examination.
2. Rule 35 requires the district court, before the examination occurs, to specify at least in a general sense the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and examiner for the examination; an after-the-fact approach is insufficient.
3. Supervisory jurisdiction was appropriate because the Rule 35 order involved potentially privileged medical information and any improper examination or disclosure could cause harm that could not be remedied by ordinary appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an independent claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress places the plaintiff's mental condition in controversy and establishes good cause for a Rule 35 psychiatric examination.
2. Whether Rule 35 requires the district court to specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination before the examination occurs.
3. Whether supervisory control was an appropriate remedy for review of the interlocutory Rule 35 discovery order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded