Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV00175, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV00175 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Leah Anderson’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Defense Medical Examination Report
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff Leah Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Brian Jones (“Brian”) and Lauren Vanessa Jones (“Lauren” or “Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.
On February 11, 2021, Defendants filed an answer. On December 2, 2021, the Court dismissed Brian, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Defense Medical Examination Report to be heard on October 26, 2022. On October 12, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 20, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendant to provide Dr. King’s full defense medical examination report for the IME conducted on April 4, 2022. Plaintiff also requests the Court grant sanctions totaling $2,060.00.
Defendant requests the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP 2032.610 provides “(a) If a party submits to, or produces another for, a physical or mental examination in compliance with a demand under Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), an order of court under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2032.310), or an agreement under Section 2016.030, that party has the option of making a written demand that the party at whose instance the examination was made deliver both of the following to the demanding party:
(1) A copy of a detailed written report setting out the history, examinations, findings, including the results of all tests made, diagnoses, prognoses, and conclusions of the examiner.
(2) A copy of reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition of the examinee made by that or any other examiner.
(b) If the option under subdivision (a) is exercised, a copy of the requested reports shall be delivered within 30 days after service of the demand, or within 15 days of trial, whichever is earlier.”
DISCUSSION
Defendant set Plaintiff’s IME for April 4, 2022; on February 28, 2022, Plaintiff made a demand for the examining doctor’s medical report of his evaluation of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s provided report does not comply with CCP §2032.610 as the report did not contain any conclusion of Dr. King. Plaintiff specifically notes that the report does not include any conclusions as to causation of Plaintiff’s injury, as well as the need for any past medical treatment or the reasonableness and necessity of past medical treatment.
The Court sees an issue. Plaintiff may want to rely on Dr. King’s report to decide whether or not to expend the time and expense to depose him. If Dr. King has no opinions regarding the necessity or reasonableness of Plaintiff’s past medical treatment or of its being necessitated by the subject accident, Plaintiff may elect not to depose him. Dr. King’s report should provide this guidance. Otherwise, Plaintiff may feel obliged to depose him to confirm that he has not opinions in these regards, which would be a wasteful endeavor.
In order to expedite the resolution of this issue, the Court orders that Dr. King may leave his report as is, but should elect not to amend it, he shall be precluded from offering opinions regarding the necessity or reasonableness of Plaintiff’s past medical treatment or of its being necessitated by the subject accident. Dr. King shall have until November 2, 2022 to amend his report.
CONCLUSION
Dr. King shall have until November 2, 2022 to amend his report should he wish to offer
opinions regarding the necessity or reasonableness of Plaintiff’s past medical treatment or of its being necessitated by the subject accident. If Dr. King does not amend his report before November 2, 2022, shall be barred from offering any opinions regarding the necessity or reasonableness of Plaintiff’s past medical treatment or of its being necessitated by the subject accident.
Plaintiff Leah Anderson’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
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.