JACK STAKLEY AND GLENNIS STAKLEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court's blanket policy prohibiting court reporters from attending compulsory physical examinations of a party. The court held that absent a valid reason, examinees have the right to have a representative present to preserve an accurate record of the examination.
A trial court may not maintain a blanket policy prohibiting third-party presence at compulsory physical examinations. Absent a valid reason to prohibit attendance, examinees have the right to have counsel, a physician, or other representatives present. The burden rests with the party opposing third-party attendance to demonstrate why such presence would be harmful under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360.
[1] A circuit court's blanket policy prohibiting the presence of a court reporter at a compulsory physical examination constitutes a departure from the essential requirements…
[2] The burden of proof rests with the party opposing third-party attendance at a compulsory physical examination to demonstrate why the court should deny the examinee's righ…
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“The judge's blanket policy is a departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes that categorical rules prohibiting third-party attendance violate procedural law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack Stakley filed suit against Allstate Insurance Company for underinsured motorist benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident. Allstate sought a…
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
PER CURIAM.
Jack and Glennis Stakley seek a petition for writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s order prohibiting the presence of a court reporter at the compulsory physical examination of Jack Stakley. We grant the petition.
The Stakleys filed suit for underin-sured motorist benefits against Allstate Insurance Company for injuries received by Jack Stakley in a motor vehicle accident. Allstate filed its motion for a compulsory physical examination of Jack Stakley, which was granted by the court.1 The circuit judge denied the Stakleys’ request that a court reporter be present at the examination. The judge stated that it was his policy to not permit court reporters to be present at such examinations. We find that the judge’s blanket policy is a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 provides a means by which the court may limit the presence of third parties at examinations should their presence be harmful. Rule 1.360(a)(3) provides “[Ujpon request of either party requesting the examination, or the party or person to be examined, the court may establish protective rules governing such examination.” The burden of proof rests with the party opposing third party attendance to show why the court should deny the examinee’s right to have counsel, a physician or other representative present. Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The record in this case reveals that Allstate did not even object to Stakley’s request.
Absent any valid reason to prohibit the presence of a third party, their presence should be allowed. In Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320, 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) the court stated:
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.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order of the circuit court. Should Allstate believe that protective rules for the examination are necessary, it may file the appropriate motion pursuant to rule 1.360.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur. . Subsequent to the filing of Allstate’s motion, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 was substantially revised. Among other matters, a court order is no longer required for examination by a qualified expert.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Jeanni M. Cimino, 754 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2000)…end Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(holding the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by prohibiting plaintiffs counsel from attending a rule 1.360 examination); Stakley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 547 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(holding absent a valid reason for denial, a person being examined pursuant to rule 1.360 can have a third party present); Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(holding burden is on the party opposing the presen…
-
Broyles v. Reilly, 695 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…rule 1.360] should be denied ... lies with the party opposing the third party’s attendance.” Collins v. Skinner, 576 So. 2d 1377, 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Wilkins v. Palumbo, 617 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Stakley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 547 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). This court has previously held that, in the absence of a valid reason to prohibit the presence of a third party, a plaintiff in a personal injury suit is entitled to have a court reporter present at a compulsory physical examinat…1 / 2
-
Toucet v. BIG Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ions at the request of either party. The burden of proof to show why the examinee’s entitlement to the presence of a third party should be denied, however, lies with the party opposing the third party’s attendance. Stakley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 547 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Absent a valid reason for denial, the examinee’s request should be upheld. Stakley; Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The court, applying that rule,…
Previewing 3 of 13 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)