DONALD STEPHENS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court denied certiorari petition challenging trial court's denial of expert witness attendance at independent neuropsychological examination, holding such denial does not depart from essential requirements of law, but permitted future motion for protective order regarding videographer attendance.
A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by denying a party's request to have an expert witness attend an independent medical examination ordered by the opposing party.
[1] A trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by denying a party's request to have an expert witness attend a compulsory independent medical examin…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[I]t would take an exceptional circumstance to permit anyone other than a videographer or court reporter and the plaintiffs attorney to be present on behalf of the plaintiff at a compulsory examination held pursuant to rule 1.360.”
Court's statement regarding who may attend compulsory examinations under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360.
Petitioner Stephens sought to have his expert witness attend his examination by a neuropsychologist selected by the state in a civil matter.…
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 Independent Medical Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in denying petitioner’s request that his expert witness be allowed to attend petitioner’s examination by a neuropsychologist selected by the state, Stressman v. Lefler, 597 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(holding it is not a departure from the essential requirements of law to deny request to have registered nurse attend an independent medical examination of the plaintiff), the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to petitioner raising below in a motion for protective order his argument that a videographer should be permitted to attend his examination by a neuropsychologist, after the examining doctor for the state is identified. See, e.g., Freeman v. Latherow, 722 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), cited with approval by this court in Byrd v. Southern Prestressed Concrete, Inc., 928 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Broyles v. Reilly, 695 So. 2d 832, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(“[I]t would take an exceptional circumstance to permit anyone other than a videographer or court reporter and the plaintiffs attorney to be present on behalf of the plaintiff at a compulsory examination held pursuant to rule 1.360.”).
KAHN, C.J., ERVIN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Broyles v. Reilly, 695 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Byrd v. S. Prestressed Concrete, Inc., 928 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Freeman v. Latherow, 722 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Stressman v. Lefler, 597 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)