Preparing for and Defending Civil Rule 35 Mental Examinations

In civil litigation where emotional distress damages are sought, it has been a common occurrence for the parties to dispute whether the court should order a compelled mental exam for the Plaintiff under Rule 35 of the FRCP. These exams are often quite expensive and invasive. This program will offer practical advice for both plaintiffs and defense attorneys in cases where a Rule 35 exam has been ordered, including a discussion of the terms under which a mental exam can be undertaken, who can attend a mental exam, whether it can be recorded, when a report is required, and the scope of the examiner's inquiry and testimony. Veteran employment law attorney Robert B. Fitzpatrick will explore the role of the treating mental health practitioner, and discuss possible alternatives to Rule 35 mental exams. 

This program will benefit both plaintiff and defense side practitioners in cases where emotional distress damages are sought.  

1. Review the requirements for Rule 35 mental examinations
2. Assess the appropriate scope of examinations
3. Differentiate garden variety cases from more complex matters
4. Analyze whether the rule can be used to allow exams by vocational rehabilitation experts