Christine Kuminka v. Atlantic County New Jersey
551 F. App'x 27
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Kuminka sued a real estate company under § 1983 and tort theories after an Atlantic County bench trial and an incident at the courthouse where she photographed deputies, resisted arrest, and suffered a broken elbow.
- District Court ordered Kuminka to attend an independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Gary Glass after she claimed emotional-distress injuries; Kuminka failed to attend a February IME and again refused a May IME.
- The District Court twice compelled attendance and warned that noncompliance would result in sanctions, then dismissed her complaint with prejudice on June 7, 2013 for willful refusal to attend the court-ordered IME.
- Kuminka appealed; the Third Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviewed whether the IME order and the dismissal were proper.
- The Third Circuit upheld the district court’s authority to order the IME (mental condition “in controversy” because of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim) but vacated the dismissal and remanded because the district court did not explicitly analyze the Poulis factors before dismissing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by ordering IME under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 | IME was improper because emotional-distress allegations were "garden-variety" and do not place mental condition in controversy | IME proper because complaint included intentional infliction of emotional distress and claimed emotional injury | IME order was proper; mental condition was in controversy given ED claim for damages and IIED count (court did not disturb order) |
| Whether IME location in New Jersey was improper after plaintiff moved to Florida | Kuminka argued New Jersey forum burdens her | Defendants argued she filed suit in NJ and alleged injuries occurred there, so NJ IME appropriate | Location was reasonable; plaintiff filed in NJ and cannot complain about exam in that forum |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for failing to attend IME was proper | Dismissal was an abuse because district court failed to analyze Poulis factors before issuing dismissal sanction | Defendants argued dismissal appropriate for willful refusal to obey court order | Vacated and remanded: district court must expressly consider and balance the six Poulis factors before dismissal |
| Whether appellate court should accept additional supplemental documents filed by Kuminka | Kuminka asked to supplement the record with documents she contended were relevant | Defendants opposed; district court previously denied leave to file supplemental appendix | Motion to clarify/submit additional exhibits denied as documents were not relevant to the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) (Rule 35 requires an affirmative showing that the mental condition is genuinely in controversy)
- Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard for Rule 35 review in this Circuit)
- Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (factors supporting IME when emotional distress alleged)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six-factor test governing dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with orders)
- Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1987) (district court should make explicit findings on Poulis factors to facilitate appellate review)