Opinion ID: 1856307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: discovery for genetic testing

Text: Section 43-1414 is essentially a discovery statute with a function and procedure quite similar to Neb.Ct.R. of Disc. 35 (rev. 1986), a discovery rule concerning examination of a party, which states: (a) Order for Examination. When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician or to produce for examination the person in his or her custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made. Rule 35 is one of the Nebraska Discovery Rules For All Civil Cases Promulgated By The Nebraska Supreme Court, which rules became effective on January 1, 1983. In Younkin v. Younkin, 221 Neb. 134, 375 N.W.2d 894 (1985), a dissolution proceeding or divorce action involving disputed paternity, we held that a blood grouping test or other scientific tests for determining paternity were within the purview of discovery authorized by Rule 35 of the Nebraska Discovery Rules. Although the pleadings alone may demonstrate a physical or mental condition in controversy, that is, a condition directly involved in the litigation as a material element of the cause of action or defense, and establish good cause, generally, the requirements of in controversy and good cause contained in Rule 35 are not satisfied by mere conclusory allegations of pleadings, but are fulfilled by a movant's affirmative showing that the condition to be verified by the requested examination, physical or mental, is actually controverted and that good cause exists for ordering the examination. See, Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964); Neuman v. Neuman, 377 A.2d 393 (D.C.1977). A movant's inability to obtain the desired information without the requested examination is relevant to a court's decision whether to order an examination under Rule 35. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, supra . See, also, Martin v. Tindell, 98 So.2d 473 (Fla.1957). To obtain discovery under Rule 35, the requisite showing does not require the movant to prove the movant's case on the merits at an evidentiary hearing, but may include a showing by an appropriate affidavit or other suitable information presented to a court whereby the court can perform its function under Rule 35. See, Schlagenhauf v. Holder, supra ; Anderson v. Anderson, 470 So.2d 52 (Fla.App.1985). This brings us to Antonson's claim concerning the deficiency of procedural due process in § 43-1414. More appropriately, this brings us to the point that we need not consider Antonson's contention about unconstitutionality of § 43-1414. The Supreme Court declines to pass on the constitutionality of legislation unless such determination concerning constitutionality of a statute is necessary for proper disposition of a question raised in an appeal. Sommerfeld v. City of Seward, 221 Neb. 76, 375 N.W.2d 129 (1985). Antonson does not contest the reliability or scientific accuracy of the genetic testing ordered by the district court and reflected in the report received in evidence at Antonson's trial. While § 43-1415 relates to admissibility of a report on genetic testing if the report is used as an exhibit in the face of an objection to admissibility under the Nebraska Evidence Rules, Antonson objected to evidential introduction of the report as a product of a statute alleged to be deficient in procedural due process and did not object to the admissibility of the report under the Nebraska Evidence Rules. Were we to consider Antonson's constitutional claim concerning § 43-1414, and, even if the statute were deficient regarding procedural due process as claimed by Antonson, the blood tests, ordered by the district court in conjunction with genetic testing, were used in a proceeding involving disputed paternity of a child. Thus, the blood tests were a proper matter for discovery under Rule 35. Younkin v. Younkin, supra . In the case before us, the petition to determine paternity, a pleading verified by the oath of Debra Tejral, presented sufficient good cause concerning disputed paternity, a matter in controversy, which might well be resolved, or at least made more or less probable, by the results from a reliable and accurate scientific test. Thus, the pleadings demonstrated a physical condition in controversy and good cause for the requested blood samples used in genetic testing. For the reason that the district court's order regarding genetic testing was obtained in conformity with Rule 35, we need not, and do not, consider Antonson's assault on the constitutionality of § 43-1414, a constitutional tempest in a statutory teapot. Inasmuch as Antonson does not question the sufficiency of the evidence for the district court's adjudication of the paternity issue, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED.