Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV03496, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 20STCV03496 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 30
ARMANDO RUIZ CARLOS, AN INDIVIDUAL vs HD SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIAL WHITE CAP, et al.
TENTATIVE
Defendant’s motion to compel an independent medical examination is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit to an additional IME with Psychiatrist Dominick Addario, M.D., on April 19, 2024, at 11:00 a.m., at 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
Moving party to give notice.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2032.220(a) provides:
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.
CCP section 2031.310 states:
(a)¿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.
(b)¿A motion for an examination 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 person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under¿Section 2016.040.
(c)¿Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.
CCP section 2032.320(a) provides: “The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under¿Section 2032.310¿only for good cause shown.”
¿“Section 2036 defines a showing of ‘good cause’ as requiring that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior. Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)
The examination will be limited to whatever condition is “in controversy” in the action. (CCP §2032.020(a).) This means the examination must be directly related to the specific injury or condition that is the subject of the litigation. (Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337.) Often, a party's pleadings put his or her mental or physical condition in controversy ... as when a plaintiff claims continuing mental or physical injury resulting from defendant's acts: “A party who chooses to allege that he has mental and emotional difficulties can hardly deny his mental state is in controversy.” (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 837 [wherein the plaintiff claimed ongoing emotional distress from sexual harassment by former employer].) Discovery responses can also frame the issues regarding the injuries and damages alleged.
Where the plaintiff's injuries are complex, several exams may be necessary by specialists in different fields. There is no limit on the number of physical or mental exams that may be ordered on a showing of good cause. The good cause requirement checks any potential harassment of the plaintiff. (See Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.)
Discussion
Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to undergo a mental independent medical examination (IME) with psychiatrist Dominick Addario, M.D., due to the emotional injuries Plaintiff is attributing to the subject incident, including anxiety, severe emotional distress, traumatic brain injury and related mental issues. (Donnelly Decl., ¶¶5-7, Exs. B-C.) Further, the mental IME is necessary to assess causation in light of Plaintiff’s pre- and post-incident accident and injury history of two tumor removal surgeries, two motor vehicle accidents, and one slip and fall accident. (Id., ¶ 10; Exs. B-D.) Plaintiff has further claimed in discovery that he will require nearly $6 million in future medical treatment, including therapy totaling $420,000, and medications totaling $471,663. (Donnelly Decl., ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff argues that he has cooperated and produced himself for four prior IMEs, including a neuropsychological examination.
While Defendants’ experts have already conducted a neuropsychological examination, a brain injury is complex. There are many subspecialties that specifically gauge different aspects of a brain injury. Defendants’ psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff calls for the specialization of a distinct practice of medicine.
Further, Plaintiff claims Defendants’ pursuit of a psychiatric IME is a surprise because Defendants did not disclose an expert psychiatrist. However, Defendants did designate Dr. Dominick Addario as their expert psychiatrist. (Reply Donnelly Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. E).
As such, there is good cause to grant the motion. Defendant’s motion to compel an independent medical examination is GRANTED.