## Facts

- A former employee sued his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related federal and state theories, alleging discrimination based on disability, age, and national origin.
- The plaintiff alleged a work-related spinal injury causing chronic problems, permanent functional limits, and reduced range of motion.
- The plaintiff sought reinstatement and asserted he could still perform the essential functions of his job.
- The plaintiff also sought damages for severe emotional and mental distress, asserting the termination caused a mental condition and severe emotional problems.
- The employer disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s physical limitations, his ability to work, and the claimed emotional harms.
- During discovery, the employer moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 for an order requiring the plaintiff to submit to a physical examination and a mental examination.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s physical condition was “in controversy” and whether the employer showed “good cause” for a Rule 35 physical examination.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s mental condition was “in controversy” and whether the employer showed “good cause” for a Rule 35 mental examination based on the emotional-distress allegations.

## Decision

- The court granted the employer’s motion to compel.
- The court ordered a Rule 35 physical examination because the plaintiff’s claimed disability, functional limits, and ability to perform job duties were directly at issue and contested.
- The court ordered a Rule 35 mental examination because the plaintiff alleged severe emotional and mental distress and a resulting mental condition, placing his mental condition at issue.
- The court required the examinations to proceed under Rule 35’s procedural controls (time, place, manner, scope, and examiner).

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a), a court may order a physical or mental examination only when the condition is “in controversy” and the movant shows “good cause.”
- Rule 35 imposes a higher, fact-specific threshold than ordinary relevance-based discovery; courts must apply the “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements in a discriminating manner.
- A plaintiff places a physical condition in controversy by alleging a disabling injury central to liability or damages and by seeking relief (including reinstatement) that depends on functional capacity.
- Allegations of severe emotional distress and an asserted mental condition can place a mental condition in controversy and justify a compelled mental examination, especially when causation and severity are disputed.
- In assessing “in controversy” and “good cause,” courts may consider the pleadings, the record, and counsel’s arguments, and may require independent expert evaluation when medical records alone are insufficient to test the claims.

## Conclusion

The court compelled both physical and mental examinations under Rule 35 because the plaintiff’s claimed spinal impairment and asserted severe emotional and mental harms were central, disputed issues in the case and the employer demonstrated good cause for independent examinations to evaluate those claims.


Ali v. Wang Labs., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 165 (M.D. Fla. 1995)