If a judge has ordered you to undergo a court ordered medical examination or a mental health evaluation as part of a civil lawsuit, you are being compelled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 to be assessed by a licensed professional chosen by the opposing side. The court will only issue that order after the other party shows your condition is genuinely disputed and that an independent exam is necessary. You keep real rights going into the appointment, but you also take on real risks, especially around medical privacy and the consequences of not showing up.
When a Court Can Order the Exam
A judge does not grant these requests automatically. The party asking for the exam has to clear two separate hurdles: showing your condition is “in controversy” and showing “good cause” for the evaluation.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations
“In controversy” means your health is a real, contested issue that affects the outcome. Filing a personal injury claim usually puts your physical condition in controversy by default, because you are asking for money based on your injuries. But a passing reference to being hurt is not enough. The condition has to be a significant point of dispute.
“Good cause” means the information cannot reasonably be obtained a less intrusive way. If your existing medical records already answer the question, a judge may refuse to order a new exam. The moving party has to explain why an independent evaluation is the only realistic way to test your claims.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations
Mental Health Claims Face a Higher Bar
Courts treat mental health exams differently depending on what you have actually alleged. General claims of “humiliation and emotional anguish,” with no diagnosed condition and no expert witness, usually do not open the door to a psychiatric evaluation. That kind of generalized distress, sometimes called “garden-variety,” is treated as too thin to put your mental state genuinely in controversy.
The analysis changes if you allege a specific psychiatric condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or if you make severe ongoing psychological harm a major part of your damages. At that point, your mental health is squarely at issue and a court is far more likely to order the exam.
What the Order Itself Must Say
A Rule 35 order is not open-ended. It has to specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the exam, along with the identity of the examiner.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations Each of those is a boundary you can enforce.
Scope is the one that matters most in practice. It defines which body parts, conditions, or psychological issues the examiner is allowed to assess. An examiner who runs unauthorized tests or digs into unrelated medical history risks having the results thrown out. Read the order carefully before you walk in, so you know exactly what is permitted.
The order also has to name a suitably licensed examiner. The requesting party usually proposes the doctor, but you can object. The examiner is hired and paid by the opposing side, which creates an inherent tension. The American Association for Justice, in a 2026 submission to the federal rules committee, said these examiners often have an ongoing relationship with opposing counsel and a financial incentive to produce favorable results.2United States Courts. Suggestion from American Association for Justice – Rule 35 If you can point to a conflict of interest or a pattern of bias, raise it early. That gives the court a reason to require a different examiner.
Your Rights During the Exam
Being compelled to attend does not strip you of all control over what happens in the room. But some of the protections people assume they have are weaker than expected.
Can Your Attorney Come With You
Federal courts have been largely uniform in rejecting a right to have your attorney present during the examination.2United States Courts. Suggestion from American Association for Justice – Rule 35 The reasoning is that an attorney’s presence could disrupt the clinical process or coach responses. Many state courts take the same view, though some states do allow a representative to attend. A proposal to amend Rule 35 to allow a representative is under committee review but has not been adopted.
Can You Record It
Federal courts generally do not permit audio or video recording of a Rule 35 exam unless you show good cause.2United States Courts. Suggestion from American Association for Justice – Rule 35 Good cause might mean a history of disputed exam conduct or a language barrier that makes miscommunication likely. Without that showing, assume no recording.
Protective Orders
If the exam feels too broad or the conditions feel oppressive, you can ask the court for a protective order under Rule 26. A judge can narrow the permitted tests, limit the duration, restrict who may be in the room, or forbid inquiry into matters outside the scope of the dispute.3Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery Before filing, you have to certify that you tried in good faith to work it out with the other side. Courts enforce that meet-and-confer requirement.
Protective orders are your main lever for keeping the exam within reasonable limits. If the examiner has clear bias, the location is unreasonably distant, or the proposed tests go beyond what your claims justify, this is the mechanism to push back.
Who Pays
Rule 35 does not say who covers the examiner’s fees, but in practice the party that requested the exam pays the examiner. If allocation of costs becomes a fight, a judge can address it in a protective order under Rule 26.3Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Do not assume travel costs or lost wages are automatically reimbursed. If the exam requires significant travel, that can be grounds for a protective order shifting the location or part of the cost to the requesting party.
The Report and the Privilege Trap
After the exam, the examiner prepares a written report with findings, diagnoses, conclusions, and the results of any tests performed.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations You can request a copy from the party that ordered the exam, and they must provide it along with reports from any earlier examinations of the same condition.
This is where many people get hurt without realizing it. Requesting the report triggers a waiver of privilege. By asking for and receiving the examiner’s report, or by deposing the examiner, you waive your medical privilege for all examinations of the same condition, in that case and any other case involving the same dispute.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations Your private treatment records, prior evaluations, and earlier medical reports tied to the condition at issue may all become available to the opposing side.
The exchange runs both directions. Once the moving party provides the examiner’s report, they can request your earlier and later medical reports on the same condition.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations Talk this through with your attorney before you ask for the report. The trade-off is significant.
If the examiner’s report is not delivered when required, the court can bar the examiner from testifying at trial.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations
Exams You Agree To Carry the Same Risks
Not every independent medical exam involves a court order. Parties often agree to one informally, sometimes before the person being examined even has a lawyer. Rule 35’s report-sharing and privilege-waiver provisions apply to these agreed exams unless the agreement specifically says otherwise.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 – Physical and Mental Examinations If you agree without negotiating terms, you can give up the same medical privacy a court order would have cost you, but without the limits a judge would have imposed on scope, conditions, or examiner.
What Happens if You Refuse
Skipping a court-ordered exam is one of the most damaging things you can do to your own case. Under Rule 37, a court can impose escalating sanctions for noncompliance.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions The available penalties include:
- Treating the disputed medical condition as established in the opposing party’s favor, so their version of your injuries is accepted without further proof.
- Prohibiting you from supporting your claims or introducing designated evidence at trial.
- Striking part or all of your complaint or answer.
- Staying the case until you comply.
- Dismissing the case entirely or entering default judgment against you.
On top of any of those, the court must generally order the noncompliant party or their attorney to pay the other side’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the refusal was substantially justified.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
There is one real limit on the court’s power. Rule 37 explicitly prohibits holding someone in contempt of court for refusing to submit to a physical or mental exam.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 – Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions You will not go to jail for not showing up. But the practical consequence, which is often losing the case, makes refusal a losing strategy. If you have real concerns, a protective order or a motion to modify the exam’s conditions is the right response, not simply failing to appear.
If Your Case Is in State Court
Rule 35 governs federal cases. Most states have adopted their own equivalent rules for state-court litigation, and those rules generally follow the same framework of in controversy plus good cause. They can differ on details like attorney presence, recording, and how you challenge an examiner. If your case is in state court, check your state’s procedural rules, because the protections may be broader or narrower than what federal courts provide.