Schlagenhauf v. Holder
379 U.S. 104 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a), a party seeking a court order for a physical or mental examination of another party must make an affirmative showing that the condition is genuinely "in controversy" and that "good cause" exists for the examination. These requirements are not met by mere conclusory allegations or the fact that a party was involved in an accident, especially when the party being examined has not put their own condition at issue.
Facts:
- A bus owned by The Greyhound Corporation and driven by Robert L. Schlagenhauf collided with the rear of a tractor-trailer.
- Passengers on the bus sustained personal injuries in the collision.
- After being sued by the passengers, Greyhound filed a cross-claim against the owner of the tractor, Contract Carriers, Inc., and the owner of the trailer, National Lead Company, alleging their negligence caused the accident.
- In response, Contract Carriers alleged that Schlagenhauf was 'not mentally or physically capable' of driving the bus at the time of the collision.
- National Lead also filed a cross-claim, specifically alleging that Schlagenhauf's 'eyes and vision' were 'impaired and deficient.'
- An attorney's affidavit stated that Schlagenhauf admitted in a deposition to seeing the truck's red lights for 10-15 seconds before impact without slowing down.
- The affidavit also noted that Schlagenhauf had been involved in a similar rear-end collision on a prior occasion.
Procedural Posture:
- Passengers injured in a bus collision filed a diversity action in the United States District Court against The Greyhound Corporation, the bus driver Robert L. Schlagenhauf, Contract Carriers, Inc., and National Lead Company.
- Greyhound filed a cross-claim against Contract Carriers and National Lead for property damage.
- Contract Carriers and National Lead petitioned the District Court for an order compelling Schlagenhauf to undergo four types of mental and physical examinations.
- The District Court, without holding a hearing, granted the petition and ordered Schlagenhauf to submit to nine separate examinations by specialists.
- This order was later corrected to require only the four examinations originally requested.
- Schlagenhauf (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking to vacate the District Court's examination order.
- The Court of Appeals denied the petition for mandamus.
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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) permit a court to order a physical or mental examination of a defendant in a negligence action who has not affirmatively put their own condition at issue, and if so, what showing is required to meet the rule's 'in controversy' and 'good cause' requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Goldberg
Yes, but the required showing was not met. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) applies to defendants as well as plaintiffs, but its requirements that a condition be 'in controversy' and that there be 'good cause' for an examination are not mere formalities. These standards require an affirmative showing by the party requesting the examination that the condition is genuinely at issue and that good cause exists for each specific examination sought. Mere conclusory allegations in pleadings or the simple fact of an accident are insufficient. In this case, the defendants' general allegations about Schlagenhauf's condition did not provide sufficient cause for the wide-ranging psychiatric, neurological, and internal medicine examinations ordered by the district court, as Schlagenhauf had not put his own condition at issue. While the specific allegation about his vision might have supported an ophthalmological examination, the order as a whole was an abuse of discretion because the required affirmative showing had not been made for the other examinations.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, and the required showing was met. The record plainly shows that Schlagenhauf's mental and physical health was 'in controversy' and that 'good cause' was shown for an examination. The circumstances of the collision—driving straight into a clearly visible truck without slowing down—combined with his admission of a prior similar accident, provided more than enough justification to order an examination. The allegations were sufficient to put his health in controversy, particularly since Schlagenhauf never denied that his health and vision were impaired. However, the initial court order for nine (and later four) separate examinations was too broad, and the case should be remanded for the district judge to refashion a more appropriately tailored order.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, Rule 35 should not be applied to compel the examination of a defendant under these circumstances. While the Court's prior decision in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. allows for the examination of a plaintiff who voluntarily puts their own condition in controversy by filing a lawsuit for personal injury, a defendant is dragged into court involuntarily. Subjecting a defendant to examination by the plaintiff's doctors creates a grave risk of 'fishing expeditions' for any possible ailment that could be prejudicial and risks turning the effective trial into a private medical inquiry rather than a jury proceeding. A rule permitting such a potentially invasive and prejudicial discovery tool against defendants must be drawn with much more precision and safeguards than currently exist.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the district court had the power, but the Supreme Court should not be deciding the issue now. Mandamus was an inappropriate remedy in this case. The District Court clearly had the power under Rule 35 to order the examination of a party; therefore, there was no 'usurpation of judicial power.' Whether the court correctly applied the 'in controversy' and 'good cause' standards is a question of potential error or abuse of discretion, not a lack of power. Such issues should be reviewed through the normal process of appeal after a final judgment is entered, not through an extraordinary writ like mandamus, which subverts the federal policy of avoiding piecemeal, interlocutory appeals.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope and limitations of Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By confirming that the rule applies to defendants but simultaneously establishing a high bar for invoking it against a party who has not affirmatively put their condition at issue, the Court prevents Rule 35 from becoming a routine discovery weapon in every negligence case. The decision protects parties from invasive examinations based on mere speculation and reinforces that discovery tools with the potential to infringe on personal privacy require a specific, affirmative showing of genuine need. This holding forces litigants to provide concrete evidence, rather than just conclusory allegations, before a court will compel a mental or physical examination.
Unlock the full brief for Schlagenhauf v. Holder