Ali v. Wang Laboratories, Inc.

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff obtained injuries while working for Defendant. Plaintiff contends that Defendant fired him from his job due to his disability, age, and national origin. Defendant files a motion to compel Plaintiff to obtain mental and physical examinations. Plaintiff objected. 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, a defendant may compel a plaintiff to obtain mental or physical examinations if the plaintiff’s mental or physical state is at issue and there is good cause for the examination.

Facts.

Ali, Plaintiff, employed by Wang Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, for about fifteen years, asserts that he suffered an injury at work, which created spurs on his vertebrae and indented the thecal sac in his spine. Further, the injury resulted in the creation of many chronic physical problems, which permanently limited his range of motion and capabilities. Plaintiff contends that his injury is deemed a disability, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant terminated him in violation of the ADA and other federal and state laws, due to his disability, age, and national origin. Plaintiff brought suit-seeking damages for severe emotional and mental distress caused by the termination. Plaintiff states he can still perform this essential job functions and wants to be re-employed. Defendant disagrees and wants Plaintiff to undergo physical and mental examinations. Thus, Defendant filed a motion to compel the examinations. Plaintiff objected, and the judge heard oral arguments on the issue.

Issue.

Whether, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, a defendant may compel a plaintiff to obtain mental or physical examinations if the plaintiff’s mental or physical state is at issue and there is good cause for the examination.

Held.

Yes, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, a defendant may compel a plaintiff to obtain mental or physical examinations if the plaintiff’s mental or physical state is at issue and there is good cause for the examination.

Discussion.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, a defendant may compel a plaintiff to obtain mental or physical examinations if the plaintiff’s mental or physical state is at issue and there is good cause for the examination. While considering the motion, the court must make a “discriminating application” of these standards, which is a high standard than the court applies to a regular discovery request under FRCP 26. When making the determination, the court may evaluate the pleadings, records on file, and arguments of counsel at a hearing. In this case, Plaintiff contends that he was should be entitled to damages for severe mental distress. Although an allegation of severe mental distress is not sufficient to require a mental examination, the allegation does put Plaintiff’s mental state at issue.  Also, because Defendant’s is required to defend against Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant should be able to do so by obtain expert testimony with the examination. Further, Plaintiff states that he suffered many physical ailments that arose from the work-related injury, causing him to be disabled. With that said, Plaintiff placed his physical state at issue as well. Moreover, Defendant has good cause to request for the physical and mental examinations. Additionally, even though the court has the discretion to place limitations on the examinations, in this case, there is no reason for the court to limit the examination, such as requiring a court reporter to be present, Plaintiff’s wife, or recording equipment. Therefore, Plaintiff is required to submit to both examinations within 20 days, and the examinations must center on the specific matters in Plaintiff’s in complaint and deposition.