MURIEL E. HIGH, PETITIONER,
v.
ALLEAN BURRELL, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
High, a defendant in a personal injury case, sought to prevent counsel and a court reporter from attending a compulsory physical examination of the opposing plaintiff. The Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's order permitting attendance but prohibiting attorney interference, finding such presence protects the examinee's privacy interests and ensures fairness.
A trial court has discretion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a) to permit third parties, including counsel and court reporters, to attend compulsory medical examinations. Such attendance is generally appropriate when the examinee's privacy interests are implicated, though the court may restrict it in certain circumstances, such as psychiatric examinations. Counsel may attend but must not interfere with the examination.
[1] A trial court has discretion to determine whether third parties may attend a compulsory physical examination.
[2] The presence of a patient's counsel or other representative at a compulsory physical examination should generally be allowed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is important to note, also, that it is the privacy of the petitioner that is involved, not that of the examiner, and if the petitioner wants to be certain that this compelled, although admittedly reasonable, intrusion into her privacy be accurately preserved, then she should be so entitled.”
Establishes that the examinee's privacy interest justifies allowing counsel and court reporter attendance to ensure accurate preservation of the examination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHigh was a defendant in a personal injury motor vehicle accident case. The trial court ordered Burrell, the plaintiff, to submit to a compulsory physi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Compulsory Physical Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
High, a defendant in a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari1 to review and quash a discovery order insofar as it allows counsel for both parties and a court reporter to be present at a compulsory physical examination of the plaintiff, Burrell, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a). Although the trial court permitted third party attendance at the examination as requested by the plaintiff, it specifically ordered counsel not to interfere with the examination. We approve the trial court’s order and therefore deny the petition.
We think this case should be decided on the basis articulated in Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In Bartell, the Fourth District overturned the trial court’s ruling that no third parties would be allowed to attend the plaintiff’s compulsory medical examination. It stated that because of the variety of possible situations there can be no hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, the presence of a patient’s counsel or other representative at a compulsory examination should be allowed. It quoted from an earlier case, Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984):
It is important to note, also, that it is the privacy of the petitioner that is involved, not that of the examiner, and if the petitioner wants to be certain that this compelled, although admittedly reasonable, intrusion into her privacy be accurately preserved, then she should be so entitled.
Id. at 1321. In Gibson, as in the instant case, the court provided for a court reporter as well as counsel for both parties to attend the examination.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure gives a trial court authority to order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. The rule states that the trial court shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination. Therefore, it seems that the presence of third parties at a compulsory examination is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. In some situations, the trial court may determine that the presence of third parties would be harmful. For example, when a psychiatric examination is ordered, the trial court may determine that the presence of third parties would impede the psychiatrist’s efforts to analyze the examinee’s mental condition. See Edwards v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 16 Cal.3d 905, 130 Cal.Rptr. 14, 549 P. 2d 846 (Cal.1976). On the other hand, in certain situations the trial court may determine that the presence of third parties will ensure fairness.
In the instant case the petitioner-defendant has not met her burden of demonstrating that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. The Bartell case supports the trial court’s order, and the order is reasonable. Attorneys for both parties are permitted to be present at the physical examination, but have been specifically instructed not to interfere with the examination. The portion of the order permitting the court reporter to be present is likewise reasonable since the examinee, whose privacy is being invaded, requested the court reporter. See, Gibson, supra. Therefore, the petition for certiorari is denied.
DENIED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . See Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rondoe Marie Williams v. Jeannine O. Brochu, 578 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…s argument on cross-appeal, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiff the cost attendant to the presence and reporting of a court reporter at an independent (compulsory) physical examination. See High v. Burrell, 509 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Goslin v. Racal Data Communications, Inc., 468 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 479 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1985). We affirm all decisions of the trial court presented on this appeal with the exception of that portion of the…
-
Toucet v. BIG Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ts under the rule stated in Collins v. Skinner. There is no basis in this record for concluding that petitioner’s attorney would be disruptive of the examination, and the court may protect against that by provision in the order. See High v. Burrell, 509 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), in which the court denied a petition for certiorari and approved a protective order authorizing a court reporter and the parties’ attorneys to be present at their physical examination with the proviso that the attorneys not inte…
-
Truesdale v. Landau, 573 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…court reporter) at the compulsory physical examination. Therefore, the court’s ruling is contrary to the established precedent in this district and elsewhere. See Stakley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 547 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); High v. Burrell, 509 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We grant Trues-dale’s petition and quash the order under review. Petition GRANTED. DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bartell v. McCARRICK, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)