Green Ex Rel. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Green Ex Rel. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc.

443 S.E.2d 906, 314 S.C. 303, 1994 S.C. LEXIS 92

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 4, 1994

Docket24058

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 443 S.E.2d 906 (Green Ex Rel. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green Ex Rel. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc., 443 S.E.2d 906, 314 S.C. 303, 1994 S.C. LEXIS 92 (S.C. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Pursuant to Rule 35, SCRCP, the trial judge ordered Appellant Darrell Green, a minor, to undergo a mental examination by a clinical psychologist. After the guardian ad litem refused to produce her grandson for this examination, the judge held her in civil contempt, and this appeal follows. Appellant Lethea Green has now filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas to stay the contempt order. After hearing oral argument on the petition, we have decided to determine the merits of this appeal since it raises solely a question of law.

Appellants assert Rule 35 does not authorize the circuit court to order a mental examination to be conducted by a clinical psychologist. We agree and reverse the orders on appeal.

Rule 35(a) states in pertinent part that the circuit court “may order [a] party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. . . .” (Emphasis added.) In interpreting the language of a court rule, we apply the same rules of construction used in interpreting statutes. Garner v. Houck, — S.C. —, 435 S.E. (2d) 847 (1993); Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of S.C., Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E. (2d) 4 (1970). Therefore, the words of Rule 35 must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the rule. Greenwood Mills, Inc. v. Second Injury Fund, — S.C. —, 433 S.E. (2d) 846 (1993).

A clinical psychologist is not a physician. Landry v. Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., 121 F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Wis. 1988); Camastro v. Tourtelot, 118 F.R.D. 442 (N.D. Ill. 1987); Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W. (2d) 749 (Tex. 1988); compare S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-47-5 to -660 (1986 & Supp. 1993) (regulating physicians, surgeons and osteopaths) with S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-55-20 to -180 (1986 & Supp. 1993) (regulating psychologists). Therefore, Rule 35 does not allow a judge to order a mental examination by a clinical psychologist. Accordingly, the order compelling the mental examination and the order of contempt are

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Pursuant to Rule 35, SCRCP, the trial judge ordered Appellant Darrell Green, a minor, to undergo a mental examination by a clinical psychologist. After the guardian ad litem refused to produce her grandson for this examination, the judge held her in civil contempt, and this appeal follows. Appellant Lethea Green has now filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas to stay the contempt order. After hearing oral argument on the petition, we have decided to determine the merits of this appeal since it raises solely a question of law.

Appellants assert Rule 35 does not authorize the circuit court to order a mental examination to be conducted by a clinical psychologist. We agree and reverse the orders on appeal.

Rule 35(a) states in pertinent part that the circuit court “may order [a] party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. . . .” (Emphasis added.) In interpreting the language of a court rule, we apply the same rules of construction used in interpreting statutes. Garner v. Houck, — S.C. —, 435 S.E. (2d) 847 (1993); Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of S.C., Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E. (2d) 4 (1970). Therefore, the words of Rule 35 must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the rule. Greenwood Mills, Inc. v. Second Injury Fund, — S.C. —, 433 S.E. (2d) 846 (1993).

A clinical psychologist is not a physician. Landry v. Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., 121 F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Wis. 1988); Camastro v. Tourtelot, 118 F.R.D. 442 (N.D. Ill. 1987); Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W. (2d) 749 (Tex. 1988); compare S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-47-5 to -660 (1986 & Supp. 1993) (regulating physicians, surgeons and osteopaths) with S.C. Code Ann. §§ 40-55-20 to -180 (1986 & Supp. 1993) (regulating psychologists). Therefore, Rule 35 does not allow a judge to order a mental examination by a clinical psychologist. Accordingly, the order compelling the mental examination and the order of contempt are

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 S.E.2d 906, 314 S.C. 303, 1994 S.C. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-ex-rel-green-v-lewis-truck-lines-inc-sc-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack