Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.

312, U.S. 1, 61 S.Ct. 422. (1941)

FACTS: Sibbach (P) brought a personal injury suit against Wilson & Co. (D) in the
District court of Illinois for injuries she sustained in Indiana. The
court required Sibbach to have a physical examination of her injuries
under Rule 35, which was not permitted under state court procedure in Illinois,
but was permitted under state court procedure in Indiana. Neither state
had a government statute regarding the issue. Sibbach refused to have the
examination and was held in contempt.
PROCEDURE: P sued D for personal injuries in District Court. P refused a court
mandated physical examination pursuant to Rule 35 and was held
in contempt. P appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court’s decision to hold P in contempt. P appealed to the United
States Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Do the federal procedural rules exceed the intended authority if they affect
substantive rights, in this case substantive meaning “important” or
“substantial”? How should the courts resolve discrepancies
between the rules of procedure and state laws?
HOLDING: The court held that P could not be held in contempt for refusing the
physical exam under Rule 37, but that the courts could mandate a
physical examination could be mandated under Rule 35. The court
held that the rule should be tested to see that it really regulates the procedure
and does not alter or hinder a substantive right.
RULE: Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes an order
by the court for a physical examination, is valid. Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which exempts from punishment the
refusal to obey an order that a party submit to a physical or mental
exam, prohibits the plaintiff from being held in contempt.
REASONING: The Rules Enabling Act keeps the rules of procedure from infringing on
the substantive rights of the people, and substantive does not mean
“important” or “substantial” and was limited to matters of
procedure. While Rule 35 does not affect any substantive rights and is
held to be valid, under Rule 37 (b)(2)(A)(i-iv) the refusal to obey an
order that a party submit to a physical or mental exam can not be
punished, and holding the plaintiff in contempt was simply an error by the
District Court, so the decision was reversed.
DISSENT: Justice Frankfurter states that Rule 35 is only applicable when it does not
affect important rights, and since the right not to be physically
violated is important, Rule 35 is invalid. Also, the drastic change
needed to make Rule 35 valid in this manner would require explicit
legislation that does not currently exist.