Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Schlagenhauf v. Holder

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryRule 35MandamusFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 35physical examinationmental examination

Facts

In a diversity negligence action arising from a bus colliding with a tractor-trailer, codefendants Contract Carriers and National Lead sought an order requiring bus driver Schlagenhauf, a defendant, to undergo examinations in internal medicine, ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry. Their request rested on pleadings alleging generally that he was not mentally or physically capable of driving and that his eyes and vision were impaired, plus an attorney affidavit stating that he had seen red lights before the collision, another witness had seen the trailer lights from a long distance, and Schlagenhauf had been involved in a prior rear-end collision. Without a hearing, the district court ordered the examinations. Schlagenhauf argued that Rule 35 did not authorize such examinations of a defendant and that, in any event, his condition was not in controversy and good cause had not been shown.

Issue

Does Rule 35 authorize a district court to order a mental or physical examination of a defendant, including at the request of codefendants, and if so, what must be shown to satisfy Rule 35's requirements that the condition be 'in controversy' and that there be 'good cause' for the examination? Also, under these unusual circumstances, could mandamus be used to review the order?

Rule

Rule 35 applies to any party, including a defendant, so long as the person to be examined is a party to the action. But Rule 35's 'in controversy' and 'good cause' requirements are not satisfied by conclusory pleadings or mere relevance; the movant must make an affirmative showing that each specific mental or physical condition is genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for each particular examination, with the trial judge applying the rule discriminatingly and specifying the examination's scope and conditions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal negligence action arising from a delivery-van collision in Columbus, Ohio, plaintiff Elena Morris sues driver Nate Corbin and his employer, Lakeview Parcel Transit. The employer moves under Rule 35 to compel Nate, its codefendant, to undergo a physical examination after another defendant alleges Nate was medically unfit to drive.

What is the strongest argument against Nate's objection that Rule 35 can never be used to examine a defendant?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 35 applies to any party, including defendants. It rejected a plaintiff-defendant distinction and also rejected any waiver theory limited to plaintiffs. The key is that the person to be examined is a party to the action and that the movant still must show the condition is in controversy and good cause exists.