Motion for Mental Exam in Texas

What Is a Motion for Mental Exam?

Background

Medical and mental exams are regulated under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 204. (See Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1-.5.) Under Rule 204.1, a party may, no later than thirty days before the end of the applicable discovery period, move for an order compelling another party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified physician or psychologist. (See id. at R. 204.1(a)(1).)

Rule 204 requires the trial court to determine “the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 204.1(d); see also In re Sharaf, No. 03-18-00671-CV, 2018 WL 5796977, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 5, 2018, orig. proceeding) [mem. op.] [concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to specify the requirements for the examination.])

How to Structure the Motion

The party seeking the examination must show both:

good cause, and
that the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy or the party responding to the motion has designated a psychologist as a testifying expert or has disclosed a psychologist's records for possible use at trial.

(See id. at R. 204.1(c)(1); Coates v. Whittington (1988) 758 S.W.2d 749, 752.)

Further, the Coates court made clear that “[i]n the absence of an affirmative showing of both prongs of the test, a trial court may not order an examination.” (Id.) The court also stated that “the movant must demonstrate that the information sought is required to obtain a fair trial and therefore necessitates intrusion upon the privacy of the person he seeks to have examined.” (Id; see also, In re Caballero (2000) 36 S.W.3d 143, 144-45.)

These requirements are not satisfied by “conclusory allegations” in the movant's pleadings or by “mere relevance to the case.” (Coates, 758 S.W.2d at 751; see In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. (2016) 492 S.W.3d 3000, 303; In re Transwestern Publ'g Realtors Co. L.L.C. (2002) 96 S.W.3d 501, 505.)

In meeting the “in controversy” prong, the Coates court stated that “[a] routine allegation of mental anguish or emotional distress does not place the party's mental condition in controversy. The plaintiff must assert mental injury that exceeds the common emotional reaction to an injury or loss.” (Coates, supra, 758 S.W.2d at 753.) Further, “sweeping examinations of a party who has not affirmatively put his mental condition in issue may not be routinely ordered simply because the party brings a personal injury action.” (Id., at 751 [citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder (1964) 379 U.S. 104, 121.]) “A mental injury that warrants a psychological evaluation is distinguishable from emotional distress that accompanies a personal-injury action.” (Id.)

“Good Cause” Defined

The Texas Supreme Court has set out three requirements for the “good cause” needed for a physical or mental exam:

the movant must show “that an examination is relevant to issues that are genuinely in controversy in the case”;
the movant “must show a reasonable nexus between the condition in controversy and the examination sought”; and
the “movant must demonstrate that it is not possible to obtain the desired information through means that are less intrusive than a compelled examination,” and “that the information sought is required to obtain a fair trial and therefore necessitates intrusion upon the privacy of the person he seeks to have examined.”

(Coates, supra, 758 S.W.2d at 753.)

“In Controversy” Defined

The “in controversy” requirement varies according to whether physical or mental medical exams are at issue. (In re Medina, 2007 WL 4279171, at *2.) Physical injuries have been held to be in controversy when a party:

places the condition into controversy by employing it either in support of, or in defense of, a claim or
a party affirmatively shows that the condition is in controversy.

(Id., citing Williams v. Sanderson (1995) 904 S.W.2d 212, 214-15.)

“Mental exams are subject to a more rigorous standard due to their sensitive nature.” (Id.) “If, however, a plaintiff intends to use expert medical testimony to prove his or her alleged mental condition, that condition is placed in controversy and the defendant would have good cause under [Rule 204.1].” (Coates, 758 S.W.2d at 753; see Laub v. Millard (1996) 925 S.W.2d 363, 364; Sherwood Lane Assocs. v. O'Neill (1990) 782 S.W.2d 942, 945.)

The Court’s Decision

The trial court possesses discretion regarding the conditions for the examination. (In re Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. (2016) 496 S.W.3d 796, 803 [“The length of [a party's] interview and the quantity and duration of neuropsychological tests to be administrated are matters for the trial court's discretion, which must be exercised by considering the fair-trial standard.”); see also In re Trimac Transp., Inc. (2008) No. 09-08-270-CV, 2008 WL 2758793, at *1 [mem. op.] [stating that the trial court retains discretion to impose reasonable limits on the location for the examination and the scope of the examination.]) In exercising this discretion, the trial court may issue protective orders “in the interest of justice” and may order, inter alia, that “discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such terms and conditions” as directed by the court. (Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b).)

“When a plaintiff elects to put his neuropsychological condition in controversy through expert testimony, the requested examination is not invasive, intrusive, or uncomfortable, and less intrusive means will not yield the desired information, even-handedness and fairness require granting the defendant's requested examination.” (In re Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. (2016) 496 S.W.3d 796, 802.)