Schlagenhauf was a bus driver for Greyhound who was involved in an accident with a tractor trailer.
One of the injured parties on the bus sued tons of folks, including Schlagenhauf.
In the course of cross-claims and such, some parties claimed that Schlagenhauf was not physically able to drive a bus and that he had bad eyesight.
One cross-claimant asked for Schlagenhauf to be subjected to testing in the fields of internal medicine, ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry.
District Court required Schlagenhauf to submit to the tests, and Schlagenhauf applied for a writ of mandamus to set aside the order requiring the tests.
Procedural History:
District court found that tests were necessary.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, tests necessary.
SCOTUS reversed, most tests not necessary, eye test might be necessary.
Issues:
Under FRCP Rule 35, may a trial court submit a party to physical and psychological tests based only on contentions by opposing counsel?
Holding/Rule:
A trial court may not submit a party to physical and psychological tests based solely on contentions by opposing counsel. There must be a basis for require these tests in the pleadings or affidavits.
The "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements of Rule 35 are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings--nor by mere relevance to the case--but require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination.
Reasoning:
Rule 35 only requires that the person to be examined be a party to the action, not that he be an opposing party with respect to the movant.
The "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements of Rule 35 are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings--nor by mere relevance to the case--but require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination.
Schlagenhauf did not assert his mental or physical condition either in support of or defense of a claim.
Rule 35 required that the parties make an affirmative showing that the mental or physical condition was in controversy and that there was good cause for the examinations requested. They failed to do so.
The only specific allegation is about the driver's eyesight, so an eye exam could be warranted.
Dissent:
Black
There was a controversy as to the driver's mental and physical health, so all tests should have been required.
Douglas
No test should be required since doctors can find something wrong with anyone if one pays them enough.
