JEFFREY L. LOOMIS AND JOYCE C. LOOMIS, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
DIMITRIOS KAPLANERIS AND GEORGIA KAPLANERIS, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a) does not authorize compulsory mental examinations by psychologists, only by physicians. The court rejected the argument that psychologists should be treated as physicians for discovery examination purposes, citing the 1972 amendment that narrowed the rule to physicians only and the need to avoid courts determining qualifications of diverse mental health professionals.
Rule 1.360(a) does not authorize compulsory mental examinations by psychologists; the rule is limited to physicians. Although psychologists may be qualified to give expert testimony on medical subjects, the language and history of the rule contemplate examination by physicians only.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a) authorizes court-ordered physical or mental examinations only by a physician.
[2] The term "physician" in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a) is strictly construed and does not include a psychologist.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's strict interpretation of 'physician' and refusal to extend it to psychologists despite their potential expertise
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoyce Loomis, plaintiff in a personal injury action, was ordered by the circuit court to submit to a mental examination by Alan Saunders, Ph.D., a cli…
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 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order of the circuit court which requires Joyce Loomis, plaintiff in a personal injury action, to submit to an examination by Alan Saunders, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist. We agree with petitioners that rule 1.360(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, does not authorize such compulsory examination.
The relevant portion of the rule reads as follows:
When the mental or physical condition, including the blood group, of a party or a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician or to produce the person in his custody or legal control for examination.
The term “physician” was given strict construction in Barry v. Barry, 426 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), wherein the court refused to permit an examination by a “vocational rehabilitative counselor.” Although a psychologist may in some instances be qualified to give opinion testimony about subjects classifiable as “medical”; see, e.g., GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); and so may display more characteristics in common with physicians than would the counselor in Barry, we do not believe that the language of rule 1.360(a) contemplates examination by a psychologist.
At one time the Florida rule authorized examinations by a physician “or other qualified expert.” However, in 1972 the rule was amended to restrict such examinations to physicians only. In re the Florida Bar: Rules of Civil Procedure, 265 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1972). The present rule is derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The federal courts are not consistent as to the applicability of rule 35 to psychologists. In his memorandum opinion in Massey v. Manitowoc Co., Inc., 101 F.R.D. 304, 306 (E.D.Pa.1983), Judge VanArtsdalen equated a psychologist with a physician, as respondents would have this court do:
Although psychiatry is a branch of medicine and psychology a branch of science, both are concerned with mental operations. Because the rule allows mental examinations and psychology is a branch of science concerned with mental operations, psychological testing is with in the scope of Rule 35 ... I conclude that under the circumstances presented a licensed psychologist can be treated as a physician for the purposes of conducting an examination under Rule 35.
See also, Anson v. Fickel, 110 F.R.D. 184 (N.D.Ind.1986). The reasoning set forth in Massey was extended to a “vocational rehabilitation expert” in Lee v. Gulf Fleet Marine Corp., 110 F.R.D. 307 (E.D.La.1986); that decision was overruled by Soudelier v. Tug Nan Services, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 429 (E.D.La.1987), but the court expressed no opinion as to the applicability of federal rule 35 to psychologists.
However, we find the better view, and the one consistent with Barry v. Barry and the history of our rule of procedure, to have been expressed in Comastro v. Tourtelot, No. 85-C-6809 (N.D.Ill. July 15, 1987) [1987 WL 35832], slip op. at fn. 1:
Given the myriad of possible backgrounds ... clinical, behavioral, or educational psychology; counseling or vocational experts; and degrees ranging from a bachelor’s to a Ph.D. ... expanding rule 35 would put courts in the difficult business of determining whether a particular individual has received sufficient training to conduct a highly intrusive examination into a party’s private life. The current rule obviates the need for additional inquiry and effectively relies upon the clearly defined, rigorous training program provided to psychiatrists in medical schools and residency programs.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the order of the circuit court compelling the psychologist’s examination of Joyce Loomis is quashed, and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 526 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…fference, for the purpose of this discussion between a psychiatric and psychological examination although the trial court used the former term. We note, without deciding that the same is true in criminal matters, the holding in Loomis v. Kaplaneris, 519 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.360(a), respecting compulsory examinations by physicians, does not extend to examinations by psychologists). . In Kruse, we recognized the admissibility of expert testimony on post traumatic stress in a child sexu…
-
Ellis Landrum v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 535 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. The federal decisions, moreover, are based upon a broad reading of rule 35(a). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a), which is derived from rule 35(a), has been construed far more narrowly than its federal counterpart. See Loomis v. Kaplaneris, 519 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (rule 1.360(a) does not authorize examination by psychologist, notwithstanding applicability of federal rule 35 to psychologists); Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (broadcaster could not c…
Authorities Cited
- In re THE Fla. BAR: Rules of Civil Procedure, 265 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1972)
- GIW S. Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Whittaker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Jones v. State, 426 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)