PATRICIA SCHAGRIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JARED SCHAGRIN, A MINOR, PETITIONER,
v.
EDWARD NACHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF BRADLEY NACHT, A MINOR, AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
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.
A minor plaintiff sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying her objection to a medical examination request. The appellate court held that the examination request violated Florida procedural rules because respondents failed to specify the nature and extent of testing, including potentially invasive urological tests, that might be performed.
A medical examination request must comply with Rule 1.360(a)(1)(A) by disclosing the nature and extent of the examination and testing to be performed. A request that permits an examining physician to perform any tests deemed necessary without prior disclosure of what those tests may include constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and violates the rule.
[1] A party requesting a medical examination under Rule 1.360(a)(1)(A), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, must disclose the nature and extent of the testing to be performed.
[2] Failure to disclose the scope of testing in a request for a medical examination constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law when the testing may includ…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Respondents have failed to disclose in any manner the nature of the examination or the extent of testing that may be performed by the examining physician. Since such testing may include invasive tests which, if improperly performed, may cause serious injury, the trial court's failure to sustain petitioner's objection to the request for the medical examination constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the core violation: failure to specify nature and extent of potentially invasive testing violates procedural requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Patricia Schagrin, individually and as parent of minor Jared Schagrin, objected to a request for medical examination filed by respondents E…
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
We grant petitioner’s petition for certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s objection to respondents’ request for a medical examination.
Petitioner objects specifically to Paragraph 4 of the request for a medical examination on the grounds that respondents’ definition of the scope of the examination does not comply with Rule 1.360(a)(1)(A), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In Paragraph 4, respondents state:
4. The scope of the examination is of a urological nature concerning conditions of the Plaintiff relating to the accident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. The exam, shall include any such tests that the doctor feels are necessary for a complete and thorough examination of the Plaintiff. (Emphasis added).
Respondents have failed to disclose in any manner the nature of the examination or the extent of testing that may be performed by the examining physician. Since such testing may include invasive tests which, if improperly performed, may cause serious injury, the trial court’s failure to sustain petitioner’s objection to the request for the medical examination constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See In the Interest of T.M.W., 553 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We recognize that respondents may be entitled to a medical examination that includes invasive testing. However, petitioner is likewise entitled to know the extent of such tests in order to seek the protection of the court in providing for reasonable measures to assure that such testing will not cause injury.
We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.