Sacramona v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp. (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's claim for future damages in a personal injury action does not, by itself, place the plaintiff's life expectancy 'in controversy' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) to compel a blood test for a condition, such as HIV, that is unrelated to the causation of the underlying injury. A defendant cannot compel a plaintiff to create new medical information that is only attenuatedly relevant to the calculation of damages.
Facts:
- On May 4, 1988, Robert J. Sacramona was seriously injured when a tire exploded while he was mounting it on a rim.
- The tire was manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. ('Bridgestone') and the rim was manufactured by The Budd Company ('Budd').
- Sacramona sued Budd and Bridgestone seeking damages for his injuries, including future lost wages and future medical expenses.
- During discovery, defendants learned that Sacramona was a former intravenous drug user who had shared needles.
- Sacramona also admitted to being bisexual and engaging in unprotected homosexual activity.
- Sacramona’s treating physician had encouraged him to be tested for HIV due to these high-risk factors, but Sacramona had never taken such a test.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert J. Sacramona filed a personal injury lawsuit against The Budd Company and Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. in federal district court.
- During the discovery phase, defendant The Budd Company filed a motion to compel Sacramona to submit to a blood test to determine his HIV status.
- Defendant Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. filed a memorandum in support of Budd's motion to compel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a personal injury plaintiff's claim for future damages, combined with evidence of a high-risk lifestyle for contracting HIV, place their life expectancy 'in controversy' and establish 'good cause' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) to compel the plaintiff to submit to a blood test for HIV?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowler, United States Magistrate Judge
No. A personal injury plaintiff's claim for future damages does not place their life expectancy 'in controversy' under Rule 35(a) in a way that would compel a blood test for a condition not caused by the defendant's actions. The court reasoned that both the relevance test under Rule 26 and the specific requirements of Rule 35 were not met. Under Rule 26, the relevance of a potential HIV test result to the underlying action was 'too attenuated,' as it was based on a speculative chain of possibilities and amounted to an impermissible 'exploratory operation.' Under Rule 35(a), the plaintiff did not place his HIV status 'in controversy' merely by seeking future damages; unlike cases where a test could determine the cause of the injury itself, the plaintiff's HIV status was collateral to the issue of liability. Furthermore, defendants failed to show 'good cause' because they were asking the court to compel the plaintiff to create new medical information, not to disclose existing information, which stretches the rule beyond its intended scope.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to compel a physical examination under Rule 35(a), particularly when it involves creating sensitive medical information. It establishes that a general claim for future damages, which necessarily involves life expectancy, does not open the door for defendants to conduct invasive and 'exploratory' discovery into any health condition that might shorten that expectancy. The ruling protects plaintiffs' privacy by requiring a direct nexus between the condition to be tested for and the substance of the legal claims, such as causation, rather than allowing such intrusions based on an attenuated connection to the quantum of damages.
