Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00075, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00075    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 10, 2024                                 TRIAL DATE: September 24, 2024

CASE:                         VERONICA PRADO; ANTHONY NARANGO, v. TLD TRANSPORT, INC.; ZHENG ZHAO and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00075

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT MENTAL EXAMIANTION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants TLD Transport, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Veronica Prado and Anthony Narango

SERVICE:                              Filed December 15, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant moves for leave to conduct a physical neurological examination of both Plaintiffs.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiffs Veronica Prado (“Prado”) and Anthony Narango’s (“Narango”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that they were injured by Defendants negligent actions after a motor vehicle accident.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motions for leave to conduct neurological examinations of Plaintiffs is DENIED without prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, subdivision (a), provides: “If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.” “The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320, subdivision (a).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant seeks to leave to conduct a neurological examination of both Plaintiffs. Defendant argues that good cause exists for the examinations because each Plaintiffs’ neurological status is directly related to the alleged harm and damages.

            Defendant provides that Prado testified during her deposition that her “head hurt” and that she sought medical attention. (Motion at p. 4:6-8, Sherman Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) Defendant also provides that Prado’s neurologist noted that Prado had various injuries related to her head and brain and that her gaze tested appeared to be abnormal. (Motion at p. 4:9-17, Sherman Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibits A and B.)

            Defendant provides that Narango testified during his deposition that he had “head pain” and dizziness. (Motion at p. 4:7-8, Sherman Decl. ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) Defendant provides that Narango’s neurologist also noted that Narango had head and brain injuries and an abnormal gaze test. (Motion at p. 4:9-16.)

            Good cause exists to allow Defendant to conduct a neurological examination on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ injuries directly relate to the examination Defendant requests. Further, Plaintiffs both sought care from a neurologist who examined both Plaintiffs and rendered an opinion on Plaintiffs’ condition. Thus, an examination is relevant for Defendant to assess and evaluate Plaintiffs’ claims.

            “An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.320, subdivision (d).)

            Defendant seeks a neurological examination on February 22, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. at 6360 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 210, Los Angeles, California 90048 with Dr. Levine, a board-certified neurologist. However, Defendant does not provide the court with information regarding the manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, and scope of the examination other than stating they are seeking “neurological imaging”.  Other than that, the Defendant simply states that they are requesting an order for a neurological examination and/or a medical Examination. Defendant has failed to provide sufficient information for this court to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions for leave to conduct neurological examinations of Plaintiffs is DENIED without prejudice.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   January 10, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court