312 U.S. 1 (1941)
Sibbach initiated an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking damages for bodily injuries that occurred in Indiana.1 Wilson & Co. filed an answer denying the complaint's allegations and moved for an order compelling Sibbach to undergo a physical examination by a court-appointed physician to assess the nature and extent of her injuries.2 The district court granted the motion and directed Sibbach to submit to the examination.3
Upon Sibbach's refusal to comply, Wilson obtained an order requiring her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt.4 Sibbach responded by contesting the court's authority to issue the examination order, pointing out that Indiana courts permitted such orders while Illinois courts did not, and that neither state had a governing statute.5 The district court found Sibbach in contempt and ordered her committed until she obeyed the examination order or was otherwise discharged.6
Sibbach appealed the contempt adjudication to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment.7 The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the question involved.8 The proceedings centered on Rules 35 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which had been promulgated pursuant to congressional authorization in the Act of June 19, 1934.9
Whether Rules 35 and 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure are within the authority granted by the Act of June 19, 1934?10
The Act of June 19, 1934 authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules for the forms of process, writs, pleadings, motions, and the practice and procedure in civil actions at law in district courts, provided that such rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant.11
Yes. Rule 35 permits a court to order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination when that party's condition is in controversy, upon good cause shown and with specified details as to time, place, manner, conditions, and scope.12 Rule 37 authorizes the consequences enumerated in Rule 37(b)(2) for refusal to comply with such an order, including deeming facts established, prohibiting introduction of evidence, striking pleadings, staying proceedings, dismissing the action, or rendering default judgment, but expressly exempts contempt as a sanction for refusal to submit to examination.13 These provisions regulate the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law rather than altering any substantive right.14
Congress took no action to eliminate them after they were reported.15
Rules 35 and 37 are within the authority granted by the Act of June 19, 1934.16
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Black, Douglas, And Murphy
Justice Frankfurter dissented.17 He argued that the Botsford decision recognized an historic immunity protecting the inviolability of the person.18 This immunity rested on considerations akin to the liberties of the subject under English law.19
A drastic change in public policy on a matter deeply touching sensibilities or prejudices as to privacy should not be inferred from a general authorization to formulate rules for the dispatch of civil business.20 Explicit legislation rather than rulemaking would be required to displace the doctrine.21 Rule 35 applies to all civil litigation in the federal courts and thus concerns the enforcement of federal rights.22
Whether the district court erred in adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt for refusing to submit to a physical examination?23
Rule 37(b)(2)(iv) exempts from punishment as for contempt the refusal to obey an order that a party submit to a physical or mental examination, limiting available remedies to those enumerated in subdivisions (i), (ii), and (iii) such as deeming facts established or dismissing the action.24
Yes. Sibbach refused to comply with the district court's order directing submission to a physical examination.25 Wilson obtained an order to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt.26 The district court adjudged her guilty of contempt and directed that she be committed until she obeyed the order or was otherwise discharged.27
Rule 37 expressly prohibits treating such a refusal as contempt and instead authorizes only the other enumerated sanctions.28 The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt adjudication without addressing the exemption.29 The Supreme Court noticed the error as plain and fundamental.30
The district court erred in adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt for refusing to submit to a physical examination.31