(a) Order for examination. When the mental or physical condition or attribute of a party or of a person in the custody or control of a party is in controversy, the court may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person in the party’s custody or control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown. All papers related to the motion and notice of any hearing must be served on a nonparty to be examined. The order must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person by whom the examination is to be made. The person being examined may record the examination by audio or video means unless the party requesting the examination shows that the recording would unduly interfere with the examination.
Rule 35.Physical and mental examination of persons
Part V: Depositions and Discovery · Last amended May 1, 2017 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 35 lets a court order a party, or someone in a party's custody or control, to undergo a physical or mental examination when that person's condition is in controversy, but only on a motion showing good cause and under an order that spells out the examination's scope.
Full Text of Rule 35
(b) Report. The party requesting the examination must disclose a detailed written report of the examiner within the shorter of 60 days after the examination or 7 days prior to the close of fact discovery, setting out the examiner’s findings, including results of all tests performed, diagnoses, and other matters that would routinely be included in an examination record generated by a medical professional. If the party requesting the examination wishes to call the examiner as an expert witness, the party must disclose the examiner as an expert in the time and manner as required by Rule 26(a)(4), but need not provide a separate Rule 26(a)(4) report if the report under this rule contains all the information required by Rule 26(a)(4).
Amendment History
Amended effective May 1, 1993; November 1, 2007; November 1, 2011; May 1, 2017.
Advisory Committee Notes
Advisory Committee Notes
Rule 35 has been substantially revised. A medical examination is not a matter of right, but should only be permitted by the trial court upon a showing of good cause. Rule 35 has always provided, and still provides, that the proponent of an examination must demonstrate good cause for the examination. And, as before, the motion and order should detail the specifics of the proposed examination.
The parties and the trial court should refrain from the use of the phrase “independent medical examiner,” using instead the neutral appellation “medical examiner,” “Rule 35 examiner,” or the like.
The committee has determined that the benefits of recording generally outweigh the downsides in a typical case. The amended rule therefore provides that recording shall be permitted as a matter of course unless the person moving for the examination demonstrates the recording would unduly interfere with the examination.
Nothing in the rule requires that the recording be conducted by a professional, and it is not the intent of the committee that this extra cost should be necessary. The committee also recognizes that recording may require the presence of a third party to manage the recording equipment, but this must be done without interference and as unobtrusively as possible.
The former requirement of Rule 35(c) providing for the production of prior reports on other examinees by the examiner was a source of great confusion and controversy. It is the committee’s view that this provision is better eliminated, and in the amended rule there is no longer an automatic requirement for the production of prior reports of other examinations.
A report must be provided for all examinations under this rule. The Rule 35 report is expected to include the same type of content and observations that would be included in a medical record generated by a competent medical professional following an examination of a patient, but need not otherwise include the matters required to be included in a Rule 26(a)(4) expert report. If the examiner is going to be called as an expert witness at trial, then the designation and disclosures under Rule 26(a)(4) are also required, and the opposing party has the option of requiring, in addition to the Rule 35(b) report, the expert’s report or deposition under Rule 26(a)(4)(C). The rule permits a party who furnishes a report under Rule 35 to include within it the expert disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(4) in order to avoid the potential need to generate a separate Rule 26 (a)(4) report later if the opposing party elects a report rather than a deposition. But submitting such a combined report will not limit the opposing party’s ability to elect a deposition if the Rule 35 examiner is designated as an expert.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 35 governs court-ordered physical and mental examinations. It applies when the physical or mental condition or attribute of a party, or of someone in a party's custody or control, is in controversy in the case. The court can order that person to submit to an examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner, but only on motion and only for good cause shown — an examination isn't automatic just because a party asks for one. Anyone being examined who isn't a party to the case must be served with the motion papers and notice of any hearing. The resulting order has to spell out the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, and name the examiner. The person being examined can record the exam by audio or video unless the party who requested it shows that recording would unduly interfere.
Once the exam happens, the party who requested it has to disclose a detailed written report — findings, test results, diagnoses, and the kind of material a medical professional would routinely include in an examination record — within whichever comes first: 60 days after the examination, or 7 days before fact discovery closes. If that party wants to call the examiner as an expert witness at trial, the examiner also has to be disclosed as an expert under Rule 26(a)(4), though a separate 26(a)(4) report isn't required if the Rule 35 report already contains everything 26(a)(4) calls for.
If a party, or a person in a party's custody or under a party's legal control, disobeys an examination order, the court can impose any sanction available under Rule 37(b), with one exception: it can't treat the disobedience as contempt of court.
The Advisory Committee Notes describe a substantial revision to this rule. An examination remains something the trial court permits only on a showing of good cause, with the motion and order expected to detail the specifics of the proposed exam. The notes steer courts and parties away from the phrase "independent medical examiner" in favor of the neutral term "medical examiner" or "Rule 35 examiner." On recording, the committee concluded that the benefits generally outweigh the downsides in a typical case, so recording is permitted as a matter of course unless the moving party shows it would unduly interfere — and nothing in the rule requires the recording be done by a professional, though a third party may need to be present to manage the equipment unobtrusively. The revision also dropped a former requirement that the examiner produce reports from other examinations, a source of confusion the committee decided was better eliminated. Every examination under this rule now requires a report modeled on a competent medical professional's examination record; if the examiner will also testify as an expert, the Rule 35 report can incorporate the Rule 26(a)(4) expert disclosures to avoid generating two separate reports, though the opposing party can still elect a deposition of an examiner designated as an expert.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court force me to undergo a medical exam if I'm suing over an injury?
Only if your physical or mental condition is in controversy in the case, and only after the other party files a motion and shows good cause. The court then issues an order spelling out the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the exam.
What has to be in the order for a Rule 35 examination?
The time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, and the identity of the person conducting it.
Can I record my own Rule 35 examination?
Yes, by audio or video, unless the party who requested the examination shows that recording would unduly interfere with it.
How soon does the requesting party have to turn over the examiner's report?
Within the shorter of 60 days after the examination or 7 days before fact discovery closes.
Does the Rule 35 report count as the examiner's expert report?
It can. If the report contains everything Rule 26(a)(4) requires, a separate expert report isn't needed, though the examiner still has to be disclosed as an expert if the requesting party plans to call the examiner at trial.
What happens if a party refuses to comply with a Rule 35 exam order?
The court can impose any sanction available under Rule 37(b), except that the refusal cannot be treated as contempt of court.
Why does the rule avoid the phrase 'independent medical examiner'?
The Advisory Committee Notes explain that the phrase is misleading, since the examiner is retained by one side, and recommend the neutral terms 'medical examiner' or 'Rule 35 examiner' instead.
Source & verification. Rule text, Advisory Committee Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Utah Supreme Court. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: independent medical exam utahrule 35 examination utahcompulsory medical examination utah lawsuitIME utahutah medical examiner report deadlinerecording a rule 35 exam