CARLA SMART, PETITIONER,
v.
SHARON BOCK, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK AND COMPTROLLER OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, 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.
In an employment discrimination action, the plaintiff petitioned for certiorari to quash two discovery orders compelling a mental health examination and production of workplace calendars and notes. The court granted the petition in part regarding the mental examination order, finding it failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1)(B) by not specifying required procedural details.
The court granted the petition in part as to the mental examination order, holding that although the trial court properly decided to grant the motion, the order's form failed to comply with Rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) because it did not specify all required procedural details. The court denied the petition regarding the calendars and notes without further comment.
[1] Certiorari jurisdiction lies to review an order compelling a mental examination.
[2] Certiorari relief from an order compelling a mental examination is only available if the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, resulting i…
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 failure of an order to specify the manner, conditions, and scope of an examination effectively gives the psychologist 'carte blanche' to perform any type of psychological inquiry, testing, and analysis and, as such, an open-ended order departs from the essential requirements of [the law], resulting in a miscarriage of justice”
Establishes the legal principle that discovery orders for mental examinations must specify procedural details to avoid giving excessive discretion to the examining physician.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plaintiff in an employment discrimination action was subject to two discovery orders: one compelling her to undergo a four-hour mental health examin…
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in an employment discrimination action petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash two discovery orders. The two orders, respectively, compel the plaintiff to: (1) undergo a four hour mental health examination by a psychiatrist; and (2) produce calendars in which she maintained a record of events occurring in her work place as well as typed notes she prepared from said calendars. On the second order as to the calendars and notes, we deny the petition without further comment. On the first order, we grant the petition in part.
“Certiorari jurisdiction lies to review an order compelling a mental examination.” J.B. v. M.M., 92 So.3d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “However, certiorari relief can only be granted if the trial court’s order amounts to a departure from the essential requirements of the law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Manubens v. Manubens, 198 So.3d 1072, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citation omitted).
The first order grants the “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Rule 1.360 Mental Examination” merely by using the following language:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to IME is hereby GRANTED. The Defendant shall notice Plaintiff of the examination (which is limited to four (4) hours) in accordance with Rule 1.360.
Although we agree with the court’s decision to grant the motion based on its review of the defendant’s motion and the plaintiffs response, the’ form of the court’s order nevertheless fails to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)(1)(B) (2016), which states, in pertinent part:
The order for examination shall be made only after notice to the person to be examined and to all parties, and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(a)(1)(B) (2016) (emphasis added); see also Manubens, 198 So.3d at 1075 (“[Tjhe failure of an order to specify the manner, conditions, and scope of an examination effectively gives the psychologist ‘carte blanche’ to perform any type of psychological inquiry, testing, and analysis and, as such, an open-ended order departs from the essential requirements of *1198the law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice,”) (citation omitted).
The defendant may seek a new order which complies with rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) to replace the first order. We deny the petition' in all other respects as to the first order without further comment.
Petition granted in part, denied in part.
Gross and Levine, JJ., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Yonathan Arenas Escobar (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…ce, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.360(a)(1)(B). “Certiorari jurisdiction lies to review an order compelling a mental examination.” Smart v. Bock, 220 So. 3d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting J.B. v. M.M., 92 So. 3d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). However, relief can be granted only if the order departs from “the essential requirements of the law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Smart, 220…
-
King v. Yonathan Arenas Escobar (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…e, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.360(a)(1)(B). “Certiorari jurisdiction lies to review an order compelling a mental examination.” Smart v. Bock, 220 So. 3d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting J.B. v. M.M., 92 So. 3d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). However, relief can be granted only if the order departs from “the essential requirements of the law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Smart, 220 So…
-
State v. Kersting, 247 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- J.B. v. M.M. and H.M., 92 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Manubens v. Claudio Manubens, 198 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)