Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01028, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV01028 Hearing Date: May 21, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 24SMCV01028
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Independent Medical Examination
HEARING DATE: 5/21/2025
Legal
Standard
Any party may obtain discovery by
means of mental or physical examination of a party to the action if the mental
or physical condition of that party is in controversy in the action. (CCP §
2032.020.) The demand must specify the date, time, 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 exam. (CCP § 2032.220(c).) Any
demand shall be scheduled for a date that is at least 30 days after service of
the demand, but the court may shorten this time upon motion. (CCP §
2032.220(d).) Within 20 days after service of the demand the party to whom the
demand is directed shall respond to the demand by a written statement that the
party will comply as stated, comply as modified, or refuse. (CCP §
2032.230(a).)
If any party seeks discovery by
physical examination, other than that described in section 2032.210 et seq.,
“the party shall obtain leave of court.” (CCP § 2032.310(a).) A motion for an
examination “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.” (CCP §
2032.310(b).) The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental
examination “only for good cause shown.” (CCP §2032.320(a).)
Analysis
Defendant Elizabeth Howard moves
for an order compelling Plaintiff Arlene Utal to submit to three medical
examinations in Los Angeles, CA, with the following experts:
·
George Henry, Ph.D., Neuropsychology, 7/29/2025,
9:00 a.m., Spaces Water Garden 2450 Colorado Ave., Suite 100 East Tower, Santa
Monica, CA 90404;
·
Nick Shamie, M.D. Orthopedics, 7/30/2025 at 2
p.m., 10850 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1270, Los Angeles, California 90024; and
·
Edwin C. Amos, M.D., Neurology, 7/31/2025 at
11:00 a.m., 2021 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 525E, Santa Monica, CA 90404.
Defendant argues that there is good
cause to examine Plaintiff in Santa Monica, which is 75 miles outside of her
residence in Florida. Defendant is unable to locate qualified experts to
conduct an examination of Plaintiff in Florida and thereafter testify at trial.
(Yoakum Decl., ¶¶ 8-10.) Defendant is willing to pay the reasonable cost and
expenses to fly Plaintiff from Florida to Los Angeles to attend the medical
examinations. (Id., ¶6.) Plaintiff’s own medical providers are in Los Angeles
County, as they treated her prior to her moving to Florida. (Id., ¶ 7.) Defendant
contends that it would be fair and equitable under such circumstances for
Plaintiff to be seen by Defendant’s experts in Los Angeles County.
Defendant, however, has not shown
good cause for the specific exams listed above. Defendant has not provided
information on the manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examinations.
Defendant only provided a generalized statement that the exams will be for
“Neuropsychology,”, “Orthopedics,” and “Neurology.” This is too vague and fails
to describe the manner, conditions and scope of the examinations. The statute requires
more specificity to ensure that “the court has considered any objections to the
tests and provides the examiner clear parameters for the examination.” (Carpenter
v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 263 [requiring plaintiff to
submit to “standardized written psychological tests” to “test emotional and
cognitive functioning” was insufficient].)
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED
without prejudice. Plaintiff’s request
for sanctions is DENIED.