Title: FISCH v. STUART

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

FISCH v. STUART  FISCH v. STUART 2014 OK 59 Case Number: 112658 Decided: 06/19/2014 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. MARK FISCH, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE ROGER STUART, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, Respondent. ORDER ¶1 Original jurisdiction is assumed, art. 7 §4, Okla. Const. The issue presented is whether the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to have a representative present and to videotape an neuropsychological examination requested by the defendant. The applicable unambiguous statute, 12 O.S. 2011 §3235, answers this question. It provides in pertinent part: A. SCOPE WHEN ELEMENT OF CLAIM OR DEFENSE. When the physical, including the blood group, or mental condition of a party or of a person in custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy in any proceeding in which the person relies upon that condition as an element of his claim or defense, an adverse party may take a physical or mental examination of such person. . . . D. REPRESENTATIVE MAY BE PRESENT. A representative of the person to be examined may be present at the examination. . . . (Emphasis supplied).1 ¶2 Mark Fisch (Fisch) was assaulted outside a Circle K Store. He filed this matter claiming injuries as a result of the assault. Fisch retained, as one of his experts, a neuropsychologist who conducted testing upon the petitioner. Circle K Stores (Circle K) sought to have Fisch examined by its neuropsychologist. Fisch, sought both to have a representative present and to videotape the examination. Circle K opposed the presence of plaintiff's representative, audio-taping and video-taping, arguing that the presence of a third party or audio/videotape equipment would invalidate the testing. ¶3 Title 12 O.S. 2011 §3235 clearly applies to physical or mental examinations and allows a representative of the person examined to be present. If the Legislature chooses to exclude mental examinations it may do so. ¶4 In Boswell v. Schultz, 2007 OK 94, 175 P.3d 390 , we held that the provision of the statute allowing a representative to be present includes the right to video tape the examination. Boswell involved a physical examination, but the statute applies to equally to physical or mental examinations. It does not distinguish between them. We also explained the procedure the trial court is to use. We said, in ¶19, fn. 26, that: Under the clear terms of our statute, when a party to a lawsuit is required to submit to a medical examination by a physician chosen by the other side, the party undergoing the examination is entitled to bring a third party representative. At his or her option, we have held the examination may be tape recorded. Any privacy concerns of the party being examined are minimal because he or she is the person making the recording. Nothing in this opinion or the statute suggests that the opposing party is allowed to walk in off the street and videotape its chosen physician examining the other party, if privacy concerns are a problem, the trial court, in its discretion can deny a request to videotape altogether. ¶5 Pursuant to the terms of 12 O.S. 2011 3235 and our holding in Boswell, supra, it was error for the trial court to deny Fisch a representative during the examination. Original jurisdiction is assumed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate examination safeguards necessary to provide all parties with their full statutory rights. ¶6 Writ granted. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 19th DAY OF JUNE, 2014. /S/VICE-CHIEF JUSTICE REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, EDMONDSON, COMBS, GURICH, JJ., concur. COLBERT, C.J., WINCHESTER, TAYLOR, JJ., dissent. FOOT