![]() ![]() ![]() Rule 35 provides that a party may have to undergo a mental examination when the party's mental condition is “in controversy” and the other side establishes “good cause” for the examination. Fed.R.Civ.P. An IME is permitted under certain circumstances under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. Likewise, the defendants have requested that Gross-Quatrone be ordered to participate in an independent medical exam (IME). Gross-Quatrone refused to sign a release authorizing them to do so. The defendants in the case sought a “complete copy of the patient file” from the plaintiff’s medical care provider. Defendants Seek Medical Records And An IME The defendants have denied the allegations. In her amended complaint and discovery responses, the judge alleges details about her emotional distress, including that she has been diagnosed with specific psychological conditions and suffered from ill health effects such as headaches, sleeplessness, and nosebleeds. Judge Gross-Quatrone filed suit in 2017, claiming that she was discriminated against and subject to a hostile work environment on the basis of gender. After a meeting between the parties in which Gross-Quatrone was accused of secretly using a recording device, Mizdol submitted a complaint with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, who advised that Gross-Quatrone be suspended for two months without pay. Gross-Quatrone was accused by colleagues of multiple forms of misconduct, including making inappropriate remarks to court officials, using her secretary to perform personal tasks, and allowing her law clerk to begin her position before the permitted start date.ĭuring this time period, Judge Gross-Quatrone alleges that she was subjected to disparaging remarks about her gender and appearance from another judge, Bonnie Mizdol. The Gross-Quatrone Case Involving Emotional Distress Damages Facts Employers may also seek a plaintiff’s medical records, particularly in cases in which the plaintiff alleges a specific psychological harm. An employer may dig up painful past events (divorce, death in the family, child custody issues) to argue that these factors-rather than the employer’s actions-caused the plaintiff’s emotional suffering. Plaintiffs who seek emotional distress damages must be prepared for an employer to delve into their personal history. Expert evidence, including professional testimony, is usually necessary to support a larger award. Additionally, they may rely on evidence that discusses their emotional state, including journal entries, email/text communications, or testimony from a doctor or mental health professional. A plaintiff may introduce testimony from friends and family who can speak to changes in their emotional state. ![]() Proving emotional distress requires the plaintiff to show “specific evidence of actual harm.” Williams v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |