Claim of “garden variety” emotional distress damages doesn’t warrant defense medical evaluation.

The plaintiff sued various health care providers, alleging they refused to perform a hysterectomy—which was being sought for gender reassignment purposes—for discriminatory reasons. The plaintiff sought to recover for the resulting “garden variety” emotional distress stemming from the alleged wrongful actions. As part of the defense of the case, the defense sought an IME to investigate the extent and duration of the plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress, depression and anxiety, as well as other potential causes for it. In denying this request, the magistrate judge concluded that the plaintiff had not placed a mental health condition “in controversy” for purposes of compelling a R. 35 medical evaluation. The court noted that the standard for compelling a R. 35 evaluation was more exacting then just showing possible relevance.

Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.