Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the court examined a motion by the defendant, Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., to compel the plaintiff to submit to a vocational examination by Lowe’s vocational expert in a personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff, who alleged negligence and sought damages for lost wages and earning capacity, had provided a vocational rehabilitation report stating incapacity to return to pre-injury work. Lowe’s contended that the examination was permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 as the plaintiff’s vocational capacity was in controversy. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that Rule 35 did not cover vocational assessments and that Lowe’s had not shown good cause since alternative evidence was available. The court analyzed the scope of Rule 35, particularly following the 1991 amendments, which broadened the range of examiners but did not explicitly include vocational assessments. Citing precedent, the court found vocational examinations could be ordered under Rule 35 but noted such assessments must relate to physical or mental examinations. The court ultimately ruled that Lowe’s did not demonstrate good cause, as sufficient documentation was available, and denied the motion to compel, emphasizing the need for a tangible controversy to justify such an examination under Rule 35.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Rule 35 permits physical or mental examinations when a party's condition is in controversy and good cause is shown, but does not inherently apply to vocational examinations.
Reasoning: The analysis reveals that Rule 35 allows for mental or physical examinations when a party's condition is in controversy, provided there is good cause.
Requirement of Good Cause for Rule 35 Examinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Good cause requires a demonstrable controversy regarding the examination sought, which was not found in this case due to the availability of other evidence.
Reasoning: Lowe’s request lacks 'good cause,' which requires a demonstrable controversy regarding the examination sought.
Scope of Rule 35 Post-1991 Amendmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The 1991 amendment to Rule 35 expanded the range of licensed professionals eligible to conduct examinations but did not explicitly include vocational assessments.
Reasoning: The 1991 amendment broadens the types of licensed professionals who may conduct such examinations, indicating a more inclusive approach compared to the prior rule.
Vocational Assessments under Rule 35subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Courts have recognized that vocational assessments may be ordered under Rule 35, but they must qualify as 'physical or mental examinations.'
Reasoning: Since 1991, courts have generally recognized that vocational examinations may be ordered under Rule 35, with cases such as Fischer v. Coastal Towing, Olcott v. LaFiandra, and Jefferys v. LRP Publications affirming that vocational rehabilitation experts qualify as 'suitably licensed or certified examiners.'