The appellate court granted the examination October 2001.
PDF File Appellate Ruling October 17, 2001
III. PROCEEDINGS ON REMAND
Although the court’s obligation to make this decision arises from Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional right of privacy, the fact that a state trial court must make this lifeand- death decision unfortunately necessitates a very public airing of her constitutionally protected privacy rights. The open proceedings are essential to assure that the public understands the legitimacy of this process. In this regard, we conclude that the Schindlers’ petition for an independent medical examination should be treated as a request for discovery within this proceeding. We conclude that the trial court should grant this request within very specific confines.
In their motion, the Schindlers have presented the affidavits of seven doctors. Of these doctors, only Dr. Webber has gone so far as to suggest that available treatment could restore cognitive function to Mrs. Schiavo. Because this claim raises the motion to the level of colorable entitlement requiring an evidentiary hearing, the Schindlers will need to present similar evidence at the hearing to support their claim for relief from the judgment. Recognizing that the opinions of the remaining doctors may have been limited by their inability to examine Mrs. Schiavo or obtain necessary diagnostic information, we
(6 Although it may be sensible for both sides to select physicians who are already involved in this case, we are not restricting them to such physicians.)
-11- do not restrict the Schindlers to presenting only the testimony of Dr. Webber. Rather, the Schindlers may choose two doctors to participate in discovery and present their opinions at an evidentiary hearing.
In addition, to control the scope of this hearing and to prevent the proverbial “war of experts,” Mr. Schiavo may introduce in rebuttal the testimony of two doctors of his choosing.6 In order to obtain the best available medical evaluation and because at least one of the Schindlers’ experts in his affidavit has accused the treating physicians of malpractice, we further conclude that the trial court should appoint a new independent physician to examine and evaluate Mrs. Schiavo’s current condition. ...
Now that is really interesting. Cause the petition denying Dr. Webber from examining Terri is, "The trial court summarily denied the petition for examination and 1.540(b)(5)motion. 800 So.2d at 643":
APPENDIX TO JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER 1.October 17, 2001, Opinion of the District Court of Appealof the Second District of Florida.