Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boadi v. Center For Human Development, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

May 31, 2017

GRACE BOADI Plaintiff,
v.
CENTER FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED and CANDY PENNINGTON Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RULE 35(a) PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION (Dkt. NO. 74)

          KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Before the court is the motion of the defendants, Center for Human Development, Incorporated (“CHD”), and Candy Pennington (collectively, “Defendants”), to compel a psychological examination of the plaintiff, Grace Boadi (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) (Dkt. No. 74) (“Defendants' Rule 35 Motion”). Plaintiff opposes the motion (Dkt. No. 76). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Rule 35 Motion is DENIED.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff's sole remaining claim in this case is that Defendants interfered with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”) by terminating her employment in or around April 2013.[1] Insofar as relevant to this motion, the facts may be briefly summarized follows.[2] In April 2013, Plaintiff was admitted to Pembroke Hospital, where she was diagnosed with major depression with psychotic features, delusional disorder, conversion disorder with seizures, and anxiety. She remained hospitalized for ten days. During his mother's hospitalization, Plaintiff's son informed CHD that Plaintiff was hospitalized and could not work her scheduled shifts. Plaintiff submitted relevant medical information to CHD in accordance with CHD's instructions. On or around April 26, 2013, following Plaintiff's release from the hospital, she provided CHD with a Certificate to Return to Work or School, signed by her health care provider, indicating that she could return to “full duty” on May 24, 2013. Plaintiff's employment was purportedly terminated pursuant to CHD's job abandonment policy because she failed personally to communicate her absences to her supervisor.

         Plaintiff has retained Frederick S. Kadushin, Ph.D., ABN as an expert. Dr. Kadushin conducted two in-person clinical examinations of Plaintiff and certain neurological tests. In addition to examining Plaintiff, Dr. Kadushin also interviewed Plaintiff's son and reviewed Plaintiff's medical records, interrogatories, depositions, and other materials relevant to this case (Dkt. No. 76-1 at 2-3). On the basis of his interviews with Plaintiff, record review, and other information, Dr. Kadushin is prepared to opine on the following question:

Was Ms. Boadi capable of understanding and following CHD company policies and procedures at any time during her hospital stay in April 2013?

(Id. at 2).

         Defendants' motion to compel a psychological examination of Plaintiff is premised on the ground that Plaintiff has placed her mental condition in controversy. Defendants have retained the services of Dr. Albert M. Drukteinis to perform cognitive capacity screening and psychological tests that were not performed by Dr. Kadushin as a basis for an opinion on Plaintiff's ability to perform the essential functions of her job in April and May 2013 and thereafter (Dkt. No. 75).

         III. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a court may order “a party whose mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner . . . on motion for good cause.” A party seeking to compel a Rule 35 examination must show that: (1) the party to be examined has placed his or her mental condition “in controversy;” and (2) the party seeking the examination has done so in good faith.[3] Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 119 (1964). Schlagenhauf requires an affirmative showing by the moving party that the plaintiff's condition is genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering the specific examination being requested. Id. at 119, 121.

         In addition to the Schlagenhauf requirements, courts have identified the following five factors that may warrant an order requiring a Rule 35 psychological examination:

(1) a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) an allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or disorder; (3) a claim of unusually severe emotional distress; (4) plaintiff's offer of expert witness testimony to support a claim of emotional distress; and/or (5) plaintiff's concession that his or her mental condition is “in controversy.” Flores-Febus v. MVM, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 338, 340 (D.P.R. 2014) (citing Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 95 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (compiling cases)). Defendants' Rule 35 Motion fails at the first stage of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.