Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV02913, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV02913    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Salvador Elizarraras (“Elizarraras”) and Fernando Garcia (“Garcia”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Dhoor Gurpreet Singh and Tripe Eight Transport, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for a mental examination.  The motion is unopposed. 

Defendants seek leave to obtain a neuropsychological examination of Elizarraras to be performed by Ari Kalechstein, M.D. at 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270E, Los Angeles, CA 90064, on July 11, 2023, beginning at 10:30 a.m.  Defendants assert that Elizarraras claims to have suffered a brain injury, confusion, memory loss, and emotional disturbances as a result of the accident.  Defendants contend a mental examination is necessary to evaluate the extent and scope of Elizarraras’s claimed injuries. 

2. Motion to Compel the Defense Mental Examination of the Plaintiff

Except for defense physicals in personal injury cases (in which one examination is permitted as a matter of course) and exams arranged by stipulation, a court order is required for a physical or mental examination. Such order may be made only after notice and hearing, and for “good cause shown.”  (CCP §2032.320(a).) 

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.) 

Here, Defendants aver that as a result of the incident, Elizarraras is alleging a brain injury, memory loss, confusion, and emotional disturbances.  Further, Defendants assert that Garcia testified at that he has observed Elizarraras suffer from memory loss and light sensitivity following the accident.  Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion or dispute Elizarraras has put his mental condition at issue.  The Court thus finds good cause for the mental examination sought. 

            CCP § 2032.320(d) requires the moving party to specify the “diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.”  Defendants indicate the scope of the examination in the moving papers.  The Court notes Defendants also listed the potential tests in the moving papers, which is sufficient to permit Elizarraras to prepare for the examination.  (Mot. at p. 2:12-20.)  Moreover, Elizarraras has not opposed the motion or otherwise objected to scope of the exam or any of the listed tests.  The Court therefore finds Defendants have met its obligations in this regard.  

            Defendants’ motion to compel Elizarraras’s mental examination is granted. 

            Elizarraras is ordered to appear for a mental examination with Ari Kalechstein, M.D. at 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270E, Los Angeles, CA 90064, on July 11, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 13^th day of April 2023