ITEM 7.01 | ISSUE 1

Issue 1:

The plaintiff objects to the doctor selected by the defendant to examine the plaintiff.

Resolution:

Judges generally will allow the medical examination to be conducted by the doctor of the defendant’s choice. The rationale sometimes given is that the plaintiff’s examining and treating physicians have been selected by the plaintiff.¹¹ However, whether to permit a defendant’s request for examination under Rule 1.360 is a matter of judicial discretion. Furthermore, Rule 1.360(a)(3) permits a trial court to establish protective rules for the compulsory examination. Thus, a defendant does not have an absolute right to select the expert to perform the examination.¹²

Footnotes

¹¹ Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

¹² See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Shepard, 644 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Congratulations! You're now booked up on Item 7.01 from Florida's Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice (2016)!
You might need to reference it during your pursuit of justice.

For instance, you might need to examine this item in order to protect yourself from organizations/judges/lawyers who break the law (see this example of a Florida judge who outright committed perjury).

Nevertheless – and as always – please get the justice you deserve.

Sincerely,

www.TextBookDiscrimination.com

Buy™.Sell™.Shop™.

TBD Marketplace™

TBD Marketplace™Shop™

	Download
	FCHR 101: How it Works
	Audio: Drop the Steal
	Video: A Judge's Perjury
	A Judge's Perjury
	How-To: Disqualification
	Warning: FCHR Bribery
	Warning: FCHR Corruption
	Warning: FCHR Discrimination
	Warning: FCHR Obstructions