MICHAEL DOMINIQUE, CELIENNE DOMINIQUE AND ELIZEE DOMINIQUE, PETITIONER,
v.
YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., AND WILLIAM D. BOWMAN, 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.
In a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident, the court held that a plaintiff's complaint alleging personal injuries is itself sufficient to establish good cause for a defendant to demand an independent medical examination under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360, without requiring additional showings of good cause.
The complaint in a personal injury case, in and of itself, establishes good cause for a defendant to compel a plaintiff to submit to a physical examination. A plaintiff who asserts physical injury in a negligence complaint places that injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for examination.
[1] A complaint alleging personal injuries in a negligence action is sufficient, in and of itself, to establish good cause for a physical examination of the plaintiff.
[2] In personal injury cases, the assertion of physical injury by a plaintiff places that condition in controversy, providing good cause for an examination.
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“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 asserted injury”
Establishes the legal standard that a complaint asserting personal injuries automatically provides good cause for independent medical examination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed a personal injury complaint alleging they suffered injuries from an automobile accident caused by defendants. Defendants served notic…
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 Negligence Action cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Plaintiffs in a personal injury ease have filed a petition for writ of certiorari from an order compelling them to submit to physical examinations, arguing that the defendants failed to show good cause. We conclude that the complaint in a personal injury case, in and of itself, establishes good cause.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that they suffered personal injuries as a result of an automobile accident caused by the defendants. Defendants served notices for the plaintiffs to appear for independent medical examinations, and plaintiffs filed objections on the grounds that defendants had failed to show “good cause” under Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.360. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ objections and they seek review.
Rule 1.360 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Request; Scope.
(1) A party may request any other party to submit to ... examination by a qualified expert when the condition that is the subject of the requested examination is in controversy.
(A) When the physical condition of a party ... under subdivision (a)(1) is in controversy, the request may be served on the plaintiff without leave of court after commencement of the action_ The response shall state that the examination will be permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated.
**
(2) An examination under this rule is authorized only when the party submitting the request has good cause for the examination. At any hearing the party submitting the request shall have the burden of showing good cause.
The Committee Notes to Rule 1.360 state, “The good cause requirement under this rule has been retained so that the requirements of Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964), have not been affected.”
In Schlagenhauf the Supreme Court, in construing "the federal rule on examinations, stated that while good cause is generally not shown by mere conclusions:
[Tjhere are situations where the pleadings alone are sufficient to meet these requirements. 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 asserted injury, (citation omitted).
379 U.S. at 118, 85 S.Ct. at 243.
The cases on which plaintiffs rely are all distinguishable, because they did not involve a plaintiff seeking to recover for personal injuries in a negligence case. See e.g., Williams v. Williams, 550 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (mental examination of the husband in a dissolution of marriage case); Fruh v. State, Department of Health And Rehabilitative Services, 430 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (mental examination of a father in a dependency action); and Gasparino v. Murphy, 352 So. 2d 933, 935 (Pla. 2d DCA 1977) (psychiatric exam of a defendant police officer in a wrongful death case).
Plaintiffs’ objection filed in the trial court claimed that good cause was not shown because the defendants could depose plaintiffs’ medical experts and defendants’ experts could then review plaintiffs’ medical records. A similar argument was rejected by the first district in Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the court observed that if the plaintiff were correct it would practically eliminate physical examinations in personal injury cases.
Since federal decisions interpreting federal rules which are similar to Florida’s rules are persuasive1, we adopt the rationale of the Supreme Court in Schlagenhauf and hold that the complaint itself is sufficient to establish good cause for a physical examination of a plaintiff seeking to recover for personal injuries.
Certiorari denied.
ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur. . See Sheradsky v. Basadre, 452 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied sub nom. Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Basadre, 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Emergency Physicians-Kang & Assocs., M.D., P.A. v. Parker, 800 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…he places his condition in controversy, and good cause for the examination is therefore shown.3 See Broward County Sch. Bd. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 388, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 779 So. 2d 270 (Fla.2000); Dominique v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 642 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). It is not enough that the defendants are allowed to review the plaintiffs medical or psychiatric records and to depose plaintiffs medical or psychiatric experts. Dominque, 642 So. 2d at 5…1 / 2
-
Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)….360(a)(1). When a plaintiff in a negligence action asserts that he has sustained a mental or physical injury, he places his condition in controversy, and good cause for the examination is therefore shown. See Dominique v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 642 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); see also Anderson v. Anderson, 470 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(there must be an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition for which examination is sought really and genu…
-
Karlynn Blagrove v. Smith, 701 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…d non-physical injuries she received as a result of the automobile accident. Respondent therefore has good cause for requesting independent examinations pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360. See Dominique v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 642 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th 1994 DCA), rev. den., 651 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). The request for an independent examination must specify a reasonable place. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(a)(1)(A). This case is distinguishable from Tsutras v. Duhe, 685 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th…
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
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1964)
- Gasparino v. Corine Murphy, 352 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Sheradsky v. Basadre, 452 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Williams v. Williams, 550 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Toucet v. BIG Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fruh v. State, 430 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)