Case Name: Karen GIBSON, Petitioner, v. Stephen Carlyle GIBSON, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-10-10
Citations: 456 So. 2d 1320
Docket Number: No. 83-2144
Parties: Karen GIBSON, Petitioner, v. Stephen Carlyle GIBSON, Respondent.
Judges: DOWNEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 1320–1323

Head Matter:
Karen GIBSON, Petitioner, v. Stephen Carlyle GIBSON, Respondent.
No. 83-2144.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 10, 1984.
Catherine Rafferty of Miller & Squire, Chartered, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Richard L. Polin, Lauderhill, and Beverly L. Vesel, Margate, for respondent.

Opinion:
ANSTEAD, Chief Judge.
We treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant the petition. In doing so, we direct the trial court to permit the attendance of a court reporter at the court-ordered psychiatric examination of the petitioner. Since the trial court has already authorized the attendance of counsel for both sides at the examination, we can see no basis for refusing petitioner's request to have a reporter in attendance.
In overturning the trial court's decision, we find ourselves more in agreement with the dissent rather than the majority opinion set out in Edwards v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 16 Cal.3d 905, 549 P.2d 846, 130 Cal.Rptr. 14 (1976), the primary authority relied upon by the respondent to deny the petitioner the right to have a court reporter, or some other suitable recording device, available at the compulsory psychiatric examination ordered by the trial court on motion by the respondent. In our view the petitioner should have the right, where the means are available as they are here, to preserve by objective means the precise communications that occur during the course of the examination. Any concerns about rapport and candor should give way to this right since otherwise the petitioner will be compelled to challenge the credibility of the examiner should a dispute later arise as to what took place. Such a dispute would be obviated by the presence of a means of recording the interview. Both the examiner and patient should benefit by the objective recording of the proceedings, and the integrity and value of the examination as evidence in the judicial proceedings should be enhanced.
It is important to note also, that it is the privacy of the petitioner that is involved, not that of the examiner, and if the petitioner wants to be certain that this compelled, although admittedly reasonable, intrusion into her privacy be accurately preserved, then she should be so entitled. There is no reason why the reporter, like a mechanical device used for the same purpose, should interfere with the process. Indeed, the presence of the reporter should relieve any anxiety the petitioner may have as to her responses to the inquiries made being received and recorded accurately by the examining physician.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court is directed to enter an order in accord with this opinion.
DOWNEY, J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.