FONSECA
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

S.D. Fla. | 2020-07-07
No. 20-CV-60400
District Court, S.D. Florida (2020)

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.

Holding

The court granted the defendant's motion for a compulsory medical examination of the plaintiff.

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, alleging injuries to her left hand and shoulder. The defendant filed a motion for a compulsory medica…

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.

Topics
Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 35 Compulsory Medical Examination Good Cause Negligence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 35 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.’S UNOPPOSED AMENDED MOTION FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF (DE 22)

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s unopposed amended1 motion for a compulsory medical examination (“CME”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 (“Motion”). (DE 22). This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable James I. Cohn, United States District Court Judge. (DE3). Having reviewed the Motion, the caselaw, and the case as a whole, the undersigned hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion as explained further herein. (DE 22). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a), the Court may order a party “whose mental or physical condition ... is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner” upon a showing of good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(a)(1)-(2). According to the Supreme Court, “[a] plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury ... places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such

THE EXAMINATION WILL LAST APPROXIMATELY1 HOUR. C. SCOPE OF EXAMINATION – Dr. Routman will perform a physical examination of Plaintiff’s left hand and left shoulder. As part of his examination, Dr. Routman will perform a comprehensive historical physical examination and review Plaintiff’s films and records. The examination will include an evaluation of Plaintiff’s range of motion, muscle strength and weaknesses in the area, percussion/palpation, stability assessment, flexibility, deep tendon reflexes,

cancellation fee, there must be at least 48-business hours’ notice to Dr. Routman of the cancellation of the physical examination. If the examination is not cancelled with sufficient notice, or if Plaintiff fails to appear at the examination, Dr. Routman may charge a cancellation fee. ISSUES REGARDING ANY POTENTIAL FEES FOR CANCELLATION WILL BE DECIDED BY THE COURT.3 In order to comply with COVID-19 regulations and health concerns, Dr. Routman and his staff will be wearing protective clothing, including masks, during the examination. If requested under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35, Defendant will provide Plaintiff with a copy of Dr. Routman’s expert report setting out the findings, including the results of all tests made, diagnoses and conclusions, within thirty (30) days. Defendant

anticipates that Dr. Routman will give opinions on the following in his report: (1) Whether Plaintiff sustained the injuries alleged; (2) Whether Plaintiff’s claimed injuries are related to the alleged incident giving rise to this litigation; (3) The reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s prior treatment; (4) Plaintiff’s past and future need for healthcare to treat these alleged injuries; and

ared M. Strauss United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to counsel via CM/ECF

Footnotes
1 The Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s unopposed motion (DE 20) that was filed on July 1, 2020 because it failed to state the time and specific place of the examination. (DE 21). asserted injury.” Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 119 (1964). Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff’s physical condition is at issue,2 and Defendant has shown good cause under Rule 35(a) for the exam. Further, Defendant’s Motion states that counsel for the parties have agreed upon a time and date, the office where the examination will take place, the manner and scope of the examination, and the person who will perform it. (DE 20). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2) (requiring an order to specify “the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, as well as the person . . . who will perform it”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff, MARINETE FONSECA, shall submit to a physical examination as follows: A. TYPE OF EXAMINATION REQUESTED – an orthopedic examination with Alan S. Routman, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon. B. DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION OF EXAMINATION – Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. EST at 5601 North Dixie Highway, Suite 210, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334.
2 Plaintiff alleges that she injured her left hand and left shoulder due to Defendant’s negligence in maintaining its premises. (DE 1-2 at ¶ 8). neurologic assessment, and testing of joint mobility through maneuvers. The examination will also include x-rays of Plaintiff’s left hand and left shoulder. The examination shall not involve any invasive testing or invasive procedures. D. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT EXAMINATION – In order to avoid a
3 The Motion indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel would not agree to a $1,000 cancellation fee on Plaintiff’s behalf. (DE 22 at 5). (5) Plaintiff's current condition and limitations, if any. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of July 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw