Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV14567, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV14567, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14567 Hearing Date: April 26, 2024 Dept: 30

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to compel an additional independent medical examination is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit to an additional IME with Dr. Label within 30 days. Moving party is ordered 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

Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to undergo an additional independent medical examination (IME) with neurologist Lorne Label, M.D. Plaintiff has already undergone an IME with orthopedist, who examined and evaluated Plaintiff regarding his injuries to his head, neck, and back. Plaintiff was also examined by a neuropsychologist relating to his complaints that he has difficulty concentrating and focusing and he has “brain fog.” However, Defendant contends there is good cause to compel Plaintiff to submit to the IME with Dr. Label because Plaintiff is also claiming to have suffered from headaches and dizziness, which are neurological issues, due to the accident.

Defendant adequately articulated that a neurologist needs to examine Plaintiff concerning his complaints regarding his headaches and dizziness. Defendant previously had Plaintiff examined by an orthopedist concerning his complaints relating to his head, neck, and back. Defendant also had Plaintiff examined by a neuropsychologist relating to his complaints regarding his mental difficulties in concentrating. Plaintiff does not, in opposition to the motion, deny suffering from headaches and dizziness or attributing the conditions to the accident. Plaintiff contends that the neurological examination will be cumulative of the neuropsychological examination. However, the neuropsychologist focuses on mental injuries, while a neurological examination also has a physical aspect. It is clear that these two examinations are different in nature. Plaintiff also contends that the neurological examination is duplicative of the orthopedic examination. Again, these are two different specialties that focus on different injuries. In addition, Plaintiff will have an advantage in relying on medical records or expert testimony from a range of doctors who have examined the full breadth of his injuries. The Court cannot simultaneously limit Defendant from having access to similar evidence.

As a result, the Court finds there is good cause to compel Plaintiff to submit to an additional IME with Dr. Label. The motion is granted.

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel an independent medical examination is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit to an additional IME with Dr. Label.