Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV03508, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03508    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 10, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Medical Examination of Plaintiff

Moving Party: Defendant Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Joh Doe

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

“(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.”  (CCP § 2032.310.)  “The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown.”  (CCP § 2032.320(a).) 

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to sit for a neuropsychiatric exam. Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted by security guards at the Defendant hospital. Plaintiff’s claimed injuries include PTSD, extreme emotional distress, and a traumatic brain injury. Given these claimed injuries, Defendant may perform an independent medical exam.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has refused to proceed with the exam because Plaintiff insists that the exam be recorded. Defendant represents that for ethical reasons, the testing cannot be recorded, and that raw testing data may only be transmitted to other experts. Plaintiff may not independently record the examination. As to raw data, the Court of Appeal in Randy's Trucking, Inc., et al. v. The Superior Court of Kern County (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 818 held that the Court may order disclosure of this information to Plaintiff’s counsel. The raw data, test information, and any audio recordings created by the expert, are relevant and discoverable. The Court will not limit disclosure only to Plaintiff’s neuropsychologists.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.