trial court, and [its ruling on the motion] will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of discre tion.” Clement v. Merchants Nat’l Bank of Mobile, 493 So.2d 1350, 1354 (Ala.1986). Wal-Mart argues, among other things, that it is fundamentally unfair to allow White’s expert to conduct a physical examination, but to prevent Wal-Mart’s expert from conducting a physical examination. White responds by stating, among other things, that because Dr. Hinton has already formed an opinion based on White’s medical records, Wal-Mart has failed to establish good cause for a physical examination, as required by Rule 35. Thus, White asks us to deny the mandamus petition because, he argues, Wal-Mart has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the 4, 267 (E.D.Mo.1996) (<HOLDING>). Rule 35(a) requires not only that the
holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody holding that the plaintiff had not placed his mental condition in controversy because he was not complaining of any definable psychological symptoms holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids holding that the alj did not err by not ordering psychological tests when the claimant was merely emotionally upset about his condition