Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV19288, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case No./Name.: 22STCV19288 MARIA ANGELICA AMARAL, et al. vs DOUGLAS JAMES WESTHOFF, et al.

Motion: MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Moving Party: Defendants

Responding Party: Plaintiff

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a trip and fall lawsuit alleging a list of injuries, including several psychological conditions. On February 22, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff's mental examination. On March 18, 2024, the Court held the hearing for the Motion to Compel and ordered the Parties to further meet and confer. The parties further met and conferred and submitted their respective declaration before the current hearing date.

The parties agreed that Plaintiff's counsel be provided the name and licensure of the interpreter for the exam, Plaintiff be allowed to audio record the exam, the examination will be completed in six hours, and raw data will be provided to Plaintiff’s neuropsychologist subject to a protective order.

The parties have reached an impasse regarding the two remaining issues and request the Court's intervention on: 1) whether Dr. Boone is required to disclose each test to be administered beforehand, and 2) whether Plaintiff's family history can be incorporated into the examination.

Section 2032.320 requires Defendant to specify the person or persons who will conduct the examination, along with the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination. Just as Defendant must specify the time and place of the examination, Defendant must specify and list by name the diagnostic tests and procedures to be used in the examination. (Carpenter v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 141 CA4th 249, 260.) Dr. Boone is required to specify the tests to be administered 7 days prior to the mental examination.

A mental examination is permitted only upon demonstrating good cause. This is to safeguard an examinee's privacy against indiscriminate "fishing expeditions" based solely on speculation of uncovering relevant information. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) However, when Plaintiff alleges a causal link between the emotional distress and the defendant's conduct, a plaintiff “implicitly claims it was not caused by a preexisting mental condition, thereby raising the question of alternative sources for the distress.” (Vinson v. Superior Court¿(1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

Plaintiff put the following mental conditions at issue: Post Concussive Syndrome, Anxiety Disorder, effects of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), the psychological impact of Neuropathic Pain, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), psychological symptoms associated with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Adjustment Disorder, Psychological Factors Affecting Other Medical Conditions, and the psychological distress linked to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1.

Questions regarding Plaintiff's family origin, including psychological, psychiatric, and medical challenges within the family, are permissible. Inquiries into the hereditary nature of the conditions Plaintiff alleges, as well as the educational backgrounds, employment history, and social development history of family members, including information on marriages and children, are also allowed. There is a good chance for Defendant to examine alternative sources for the various mental conditions Plaintiff attributes to the incident. To protect third party privacy, names of the family members need not to be used during the examination.