SUZANNE J. BOZMAN AND DAVID P. BOZMAN, PETITIONERS,
v.
DAVID A. ROGERS, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1994-08-01
No. 94-1135
WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur., ERVIN, J., concurring in result.
640 So. 2d 180 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1994)

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 held that the challenge to the denial of a court reporter was untimely and that requiring oral responses during an independent medical examination does not depart from the essential requirements of law.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash trial court orders regarding an independent medical examination. Specifically, they challenged the re…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Suzanne J. Bozman and David P. Bozman, plaintiffs at the trial level, petition this court for issuance of a writ of common law certiorari. The petitioners seek to quash the decision of the trial court which required Mrs. Bozman to fill out all forms and to provide orally all appropriate information requested by the doctor during an independent medical examination.1 Petitioners also seek to quash the decision of the trial court which denied them the right to have a court reporter present during the examination. We find that the petitioners’ challenge, to the trial court’s denial of the request to have a court reporter present during the medical examination is untimely.2 See Bensonhurst Drywall, Inc. v. Ledesma, 583 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We also determine that the requirement that petitioner orally respond to questions from the doctor during her independent medical examination does not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law.

We therefore deny the petition.

WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., concurring in result.

. The court also ruled that, in addition, the petitioner could provide a written history if she desired.

. The decision to not allow a court reporter was made in a separate order entered more than 30 days prior to the filing of the petition for certiorari.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw