High v. Burrell, 87-340
| Decision Date | 02 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-340,87-340 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1620,509 So.2d 385 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1620 Muriel E. HIGH, Petitioner, v. Allean BURRELL, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Clifford D. Edelston and John S. Plummer, of Gurney & Handley, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner.
Robert D. Melton of Robert D. Melton, P.A., Orlando, for respondent.
James F. McKenzie and Daniel M. Soloway, of McKenzie & Associates, P.A., Pensacola, Attorneys for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
High, a defendant in a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari 1 to review and quash a discovery order insofar as it allows counsel for both parties and a court reporter to be present at a compulsory physical examination of the plaintiff, Burrell, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a). Although the trial court permitted third party attendance at the examination as requested by the plaintiff, it specifically ordered counsel not to interfere with the examination. We approve the trial court's order and therefore deny the petition.
We think this case should be decided on the basis articulated in Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In Bartell, the Fourth District overturned the trial court's ruling that no third parties would be allowed to attend the plaintiff's compulsory medical examination. It stated that because of the variety of possible situations there can be no hard and fast rule, but generally speaking, the presence of a patient's counsel or other representative at a compulsory examination should be allowed. It quoted from an earlier case, Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984):
It is important to note, also, that it is the privacy of the petitioner that is involved, not that of the examiner, and if the petitioner wants to be certain that this compelled, although admittedly reasonable, intrusion into her privacy be accurately preserved, then she should be so entitled.
Id. at 1321. In Gibson, as in the instant case, the court provided for a court reporter as well as counsel for both parties to attend the examination.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure gives a trial court authority to order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. The rule states that the trial court shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of the examination. Therefore, it seems that the presence of third parties at a compulsory examination is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. In some situations, the trial court may determine that the presence of third parties would be harmful. For example, when a psychiatric examination is ordered, the trial court may determine that the presence of third parties would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Brochu
...attendant to the presence and reporting of a court reporter at an independent (compulsory) physical examination. See High v. Burrell, 509 So.2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Goslin v. Racal Data Communications, Inc., 468 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 479 So.2d 117 We affirm all deci......
-
Lunceford v. Florida Cent. R. Co., Inc., 98-3320.
...to ensure that the compelled examination is accurately preserved, the petitioner should generally be entitled to do so. High v. Burrell, 509 So.2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA FCR argues, inter alia, that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy w......
-
Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage, Inc., 91-177
...attorney would be disruptive of the examination, and the court may protect against that by provision in the order. See High v. Burrell, 509 So.2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), in which the court denied a petition for certiorari and approved a protective order authorizing a court reporter and the......
-
Medrano v. BEC Const. Corp., 90-1211
...Inc., 581 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Collins By and Through Burton v. Skinner, 576 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); High v. Burrell, 509 So.2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).The federal courts and a number of jurisdictions hold that an ex......