Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case 21STSV34171 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Paula Munoz vs. Overland Veterinary Clinic, Case No. 21STCV34171

Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Submit to Mental Status Examination

Plaintiff filed this case on September 15, 2021, alleging 14 causes of action for discrimination and related issues against her former employer, Defendant Overland Veterinary Clinic, and former colleague, Defendant Michael Moraskie (collectively Defendants).

As part of her complaint, Plaintiff is alleging that she has suffered and continues to suffer from emotional distress, anxiety, depression, headaches, tension, and medical expenses for psychological counseling and treatment. (Schreck Decl., at ¶ 36, Ex. B, 8:12-15.) She also alleges that she suffers from humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish. (Schreck Decl., at ¶ 152, Ex. B, 24:7-8.) Plaintiff also alleges several other mental health issues as a result of Defendants’ conduct. (Motion at p. 3.)

Plaintiff refuses to consent to a mental examination, and as a result, Defendants filed this motion on January 19, 2023, requesting that Plaintiff be ordered to attend a mental examination with Dr. Delia Maria Silva on March 3, 2023, from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. at an office to be determined. Plaintiff opposes this motion.

“Plaintiff agrees that the first step of the analysis has been satisfied since Plaintiff has placed her mental status at issue and is making a claim for specific mental injuries. As such, Defendants are within their right to try and seek an Order for some form of mental examination.” (Opp. Pg. 1:8-10.)

However, she disputes that the request was in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2032.310 and seeks conditions to be imposed on any exam. Defendants indicate that efforts were made to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the mental examination.

Subdivisions (a) and (c) of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2032.020 govern mental status examinations. Except where arranged by stipulation among the parties, a court order is required for a mental status examination. An order is appropriate when the examination pertains to a condition “in controversy” in the case, and upon a showing of “good cause.” (CCP § 2032.020.)

Independent medical examinations are meant to test the true extent of a plaintiff’s injuries, to ascertain the medical treatment required, and to measure plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace and society. (Vinson v. Superior Ct. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 838.) This purpose supports the notion that both plaintiff and defendants “should desire an accurate appraisal of the damages suffered” to dispose of the case fairly and efficiently. (Reuter v. Superior Ct. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 332, 338.)

In no case has an independent medical examination proven to be a more essential discovery mechanism than in the case where the cause and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries are in question. (Vinson v. Superior Ct., at 838.) Significantly, “[t]he choice of the examining physician generally belongs to the defendant…, although the plaintiff has a right to the presence of counsel during the examination.” (Pratt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 165, 181 (internal citation omitted).)

In Vinson, the California Supreme Court addressed what constitutes “good cause” in the context of compelling an independent mental status examination. The court stated:

Plaintiff in the case at bar asserts that she continues to suffer diminished self-esteem, reduced motivation, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, fear, lessened ability to help others, loss of social contacts, anxiety, mental anguish, loss of reputation, and severe emotional distress. In their motion defendants pointed to these allegations. Because the truth of these claims is relevant to plaintiff's cause of action and justifying facts have been shown with specificity, good cause as to these assertions have been demonstrated. Subject to limitations necessitated by plaintiffs right to privacy, defendants must be allowed to investigate the continued existence and severity of plaintiff’s alleged damages.

In this case, as Plaintiff has acknowledged, she has put her mental condition in controversy by alleging that she has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional and mental distress because of the actions of Defendants. Defendants have shown good cause for a mental examination, and, despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, have provided sufficient details about the conditions of the proposed mental examination.

The request complied with the statutory requirements. Therefore Defendants are entitled to the requested examination. The Court does not agree that the limitations sought by Plaintiff are appropriate. There is no indication that Defendants’ examination shall not comply with ethical limitations or invade that attorney client privilege. Therefore the examination should go forward in the ordinary course without limitation.

Defendants’ motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a mental status examination is granted, and Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a mental status examination with Dr. Silva on March 3, 2023, from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. at a location to be determined by agreement between the parties.