Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

norayr mkheyan,

Plaintiff,

samuel keith stearns,

Defendant.

Case No.: 23BBCV02349

Hearing Date: June 6, 2025

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to compel compliance with demand for medical examination

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff Norayr Mkheyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Samuel Keith Stearns (“Defendant”) for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on December 4, 2022, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant near 5900 Vineland Ave. in North Hollywood. Plaintiff alleges that he was traveling straight on Vineland Ave. when Defendant failed to make a stop at the stop sign and suddenly hit the side of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. Motion on Calendar

On April 16, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to compel compliance with demand for medical examination.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 2032.220 states:

(a) In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive.

(2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.

(b) A defendant may make a demand under this article without leave of court after that defendant has been served or has appeared in the action, whichever occurs first.

(c) A demand under subdivision (a) 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 physician who will perform the examination.

(d) A physical examination demanded under subdivision (a) shall be scheduled for a date that is at least 30 days after service of the demand. On motion of the party demanding the examination, the court may shorten this time.

(e) The defendant shall serve a copy of the demand under subdivision (a) on the plaintiff and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.

(CCP § 2032.220.)

CCP § 2032.240(b) states: “The defendant may move for an order compelling response and compliance with a demand for a physical examination.”

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (“IME”) with Brian Grossman, M.D., a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. The jury trial is set for August 25, 2025.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is claiming orthopedic injuries, including his neck, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, as a result of the accident. (Brunello Decl., ¶¶3-4.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff has undergone chiropractic treatment and acupuncture for his neck and spine, and he has been referred to pain management treatment for possible lumbar spine injections.

Defense counsel Vincent H. Brunello states that though Plaintiff’s IME was properly noticed and confirmed for August 28, 2024, the IME was cancelled due to the unavailability of an interpreter that day. (Brunello Decl., ¶¶6-8, Exs. B-C.) Counsel states that Defendant served another notice for an IME date of December 4, 2024, but Plaintiff failed to attend the IME. (Id., ¶¶9-10, Exs. D-E.) On January 29, 2025, Defendant requested if February 26, 2025 was available, but Defendant did not receive a response from Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id., ¶11, Ex. F.) On April 3, 2025, Defendant served another IME notice setting it for June 4, 2025, but defense counsel has not received a response from Plaintiff. (Id., ¶12, Ex. G.)

Here, it appears that Plaintiff was amenable to submitting to his IME provided that he had an interpreter. Since the first IME date, however, Plaintiff and his counsel have not been responsive to Defendant’s attempts to reschedule the IME. As such, the motion to compel Plaintiff’s IME is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable time to conduct the IME, which also aligns with the availability of an interpreter.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Samuel Keith Stearns’ motion to compel Plaintiff Norayr Mkheyan’s compliance with the demand for medical examination is granted. The parties are ordered to meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable IME date that also aligns with the availability of an interpreter. If the parties are unable to find a mutually agreeable date within 30 days of this order, Defendant may notice Plaintiff’s IME for within 60 days of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: June 6, 2025 ___________________________

John J. Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court

Website by Triangulus