SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Background 

Plaintiffs George Preciado (“George”) and Kimberly Preciado (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Robert Wu (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle v. bicycle incident in which Plaintiff George was allegedly thrown to the pavement after colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle, whereupon he suffered multiple traumatic injuries.  

 

At this time, Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff George to appear for a mental examination.  Any opposition was due on or before August 1, 2023. No opposition was filed.   

 

Defendant seeks leave to obtain a neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff George to be performed by Charles Hinkin, M.D. at 921 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 208, Los Angeles, CA 90024.  Defendant asserts that Plaintiff George claims to have a myriad of cognitive symptoms, including mood changes, difficulty with concentration and multi-tasking, memory trouble, irritability, frustration, and stuttering as a result of the subject incident. Defendant contends a mental examination is necessary to evaluate the Plaintiff George’s claimed injuries.   

2. Motion to Compel the Defense Mental Examination of 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, Defendant avers that as a result of the incident, Plaintiff George testified in his deposition and provided in his discovery responses ongoing cognitive problems including difficulty with memory and concentration and changes in mood and function related to the subject accident.  Plaintiff reported ongoing memory difficulties, trouble with concentration, impaired multitasking, and difficulty with word finding to Defendant's neurologist Arthur Kowell, M,D. on April 28, 2022. Defendant contends that Plaintiff, therefore, has placed neuropsychological claims at issue. Furthermore, defense counsel avers that they attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to request an agreement to the defense neuropsychological exam; Plaintiffs’ counsel did not agree. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion or dispute Plaintiff Goerge has put his mental condition at issue.  Based on the foregoing, 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.”  Defendant indicates the nature and scope of the examination in the moving papers.  The Court notes Defendant also listed the potential tests in the moving papers, which is sufficient to permit Plaintiff George to prepare for the examination.  (Mot. at p. 7:7-14.)  Moreover, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion or otherwise objected to scope of the examination or any of the listed tests.  The Court therefore finds Defendant has met his obligations in this regard.   

 

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff George’s mental examination is granted.   

 

Plaintiff George is ordered to appear for a mental examination with Charles Hinkin, M.D. at 921 Westwood Blvd. Ste. 208, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Counsel must meet and confer to determine the date and time for the examination; if Plaintiffs do not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer process, Defendant may unilaterally set the date and time for the examination with at least ten days’ notice to Plaintiffs (extended per Code if by other than personal service).     

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 11th day of August 2023