ANGELICA ROSE PALANK, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL JOSEPH PALANK, DECEASED; AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF PAUL JOSEPH PALANK, DECEASED; AND AS MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND OF TAYLOR ROSE PALANK, A MINOR, AND JOSEF PAUL PALANK, A MINOR, PETITIONERS,
v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., A FOREIGN 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order that prohibited a minor plaintiff's mother, counsel, and recording devices from being present during a court-ordered independent psychiatric examination. The court held that protective procedures for examinations of children should permit the presence of the parent, counsel, and a recording mechanism to accurately document the examination.
The court held that the trial court's order was an abuse of discretion. While the trial court has discretion to establish protective rules for independent medical examinations, the exclusion of counsel, court reporter, and tape recording devices is not supported by conflicting evidence and deprives the plaintiffs of an adequate means to accurately record the examination, particularly where minor children are involved.
[1] A trial court has discretion to establish protective rules for independent medical examinations.
[2] A need exists to accurately record events during an independent psychiatric examination, especially when minors are involved.
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“We find merit in petitioner's argument that a need exists to accurately record the events during the examination, especially where children are involved.”
Establishes the court's core holding that recording mechanisms are necessary, particularly for examinations of minors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJosef Paul Palank and Taylor Rose Palank are minor plaintiffs in a wrongful death action arising from their father's alleged death caused by the negli…
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 Protective Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order on respondent’s motion to compel a private independent psychiatric examination of Josef Paul Palank and Taylor Rose Palank and for costs. The order provides:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby granted in part and denied in part; Mrs. Palank only may be present at the examination. No one else shall be present. Neither Mrs. Palank nor plaintiffs counsel is permitted to sound record or video record the examination. Both parties motions to tax cost are denied. Neither Angel Palank nor Josef Palank, nor Taylor Pa-lank may have counsel present at the examination.
Josef and Taylor Palank, are minor plaintiffs in the underlying wrongful death action seeking damages for the death of their father allegedly caused by the negligence of respondent. The children are now eight years old and four years old, respectively. The order on review follows two previous orders: the first entered on petitioner’s motion for a protective order regarding the compulsory examination of the children and the second order relating to the procedure for conducting such examinations.
At the request of any party, the trial court has discretion to establish protective rules for independent medical examinations under rule 1.360(a)(3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. We find merit in petitioner’s argument that a need exists to accurately record the events during the examination, especially where children are involved. The conflicting evidence concerning the presence of third parties during the examination does not support the trial court’s exclusion of counsel and a court reporter or a tape recording device from the examination. See Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); see generally Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we quash the trial court’s order compelling a private independent psychiatric examination of the minor plaintiffs and remand this cause to the trial court for entry of an order providing for the independent psychiatric examination with the mother, counsel for the plaintiff and a means of recording; either court reporter or a tape recorder present.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.
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)…Bd. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 388, 393-94 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 779 So. 2d 270 (Fla.2000) (15-year-old with developmental age of 7 or 8-year-old may be ordered to undergo a compulsory [*635] neurological examinalion); Palank v. CSX Transp., Inc., 657 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (compulsory psychiatric examination of 4 and 8-year-old approved). . At least one other Florida court has recognized that Angrand permits expert testimony as to grief and bereavement in limited circumstances. See St. Mary’s Hosp…
-
Byrd v. S. Prestressed Concrete, Inc., 928 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…The Fourth District also quashed a trial court order requiring two minor plaintiffs to submit to compulsory psychiatric examinations without the attendance of their attorney, mother and some means of recording in Palank v. CSX Transportation, Pic., 657 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), relying in part on Bartell and concluding that the defendant had failed to present sufficient evidence to carry its burden. In Freeman v. Latherow, 722 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the plaintiff in a personal injury action so…
Authorities Cited
- Bartell v. McCARRICK, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Toucet v. BIG Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)