Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV44498, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV44498 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendants Aron Joel Hernandez and City of Los Angeles’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jess Dunlap’s Independent Medical Exam
Having considered the moving, opposing, reply and supplemental papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff Jess Dunlap (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Aron Joel Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and City of Los Angeles (“City”) for motor vehicle negligence.
On February 28, 2020, Defendants filed an answer.
On March 20, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s IME to be heard on April 14, 2023. On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On April 6, 2023, Defendants filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to May 9, 2023. On April 28, 2023, Defendants filed supplement papers.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 2, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendants request the Court order Plaintiff to attend an IME with neurologist Arthur P. Kowell, MD, PhD on April 26, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. at 16311 Ventura Blvd., Ste 680, Encino, CA 91436.
Plaintiff requests the motion be denied or, in the alternative, limit the examination and “provide protection to Plaintiff to obtain all the relevant information related to the examination as the code requires.”
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff in applicable personal injury cases, so long as the examination is not painful, protracted or intrusive, and is within 75 miles of the examinee’s place of residence. Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.220. Within 20 days of being served with the demand, the plaintiff served will respond either with intent to comply or refuse, and if the latter, provide reasons for the refusal. CCP § 2032.230.
Code of Civil Procedure §2032.310 (a) requires a party to obtain leave of court if it wishes to obtain discovery by an additional physical exam or any mental exam. Subdivision (b) provides that a motion shall “...specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” Such a motion may only be granted on good cause shown. (CCP §2032.320(a).)
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the subject incident, he has suffered from orthopedic and neurological injuries, including headaches, disrupted vision, neck pain, shoulder pain, back pain, numbness and tingling in hands, difficulty urinating, stress, suicidal thoughts and difficult sleeping. Plaintiff treated with both orthopedic surgeons and neurologists following the incident. Plaintiff has put potential injuries and symptoms at issue that a neurologist could evaluate, meaning there is good cause for such an IME.
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding both timing and the lack of expert support are both irrelevant to determination of good cause. The discovery period is still ongoing, and an expert opinion is not required for this motion.
The Court previously continued the motion and ordered Defendants to submit additional information as to the conditions, scope and nature of the exam. Defendants provided a document detailing the examination’s tests and focus. This complies with the CCP § 2032.310(b) requirements; the Court grants the motion. However, the previously noticed date has passed, so instead the Court orders Plaintiff to appear for an exam within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Aron Joel Hernandez and City of Los Angeles’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jess Dunlap’s Independent Medical Exam is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for an IME with neurologist Arthur P. Kowell, MD, PhD, at 16311 Ventura Blvd., Ste 680, Encino, CA 91436, within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.