Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV01192, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 24STCV01192 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: December 5, 2024
CASE NAME: Christian Derefield v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV01192
MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Christian Derefield
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Concentra Health Services, Inc. and Occupational Health Centers of California
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An Order granting trial preference.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff Christian Derefield (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Concentra Health Services, Inc., and Occupational Health Centers of California (Defendants) with six causes of action for: (1) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability; (2) Discrimination on the Basis of Age; (3) Failure to Accommodate Disability; (4) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process to Accommodate Disability; (5) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants for over 26 years before Defendants wrongfully terminated his employment. Plaintiff further alleges that he was 69 years old at the time Defendants terminated him and that they discriminated against his recent diagnosis of Pre-Motor Parkinson’s Disease.
On March 21, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer.
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Trial Preference.
On October 18, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication.
On October 25, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff. On November 8, 2024, Defendants filed an Amended Notice and Memorandum in support of their Motion to Compel. On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
On November 20, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference.
Replies were due on or before November 26, 2024. As of December 2, 2024, the court has not received a reply brief.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Trial Preference
A party who is over 70 years old may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and (2) the health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., (CCP) § 36, subd. (a).)¿ An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party.¿ (CCP § 36.5.)¿¿
“Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party’s attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record.¿ Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.”¿ (CCP § 36, subd. (f).)¿
Evidentiary Objections
This court is unaware of any legal authority which requires a court to rule on evidentiary objections on a motion, except as to a motion for summary motion/adjudication [CCP § 437c (q)] or a special motion to strike (CCP § 425.16 (b)(2); see also, Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 947-949.) As such, this court respectfully declines to rule on any of these objections. This court is well aware of the rules of evidence, and to how much weight, if any, should be given to any of the proposed evidence.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff contends trial preference is warranted because his ability to participate fully in the trial process and his overall right to a fair trial are at serious risk due to his health conditions and age. Plaintiff requests that the court keep the currently set trial date of February 3, 2025.[1] Defendants argue Plaintiff has not met the requirements of CCP § 36(a).
Here, Plaintiff’ has met their burden. “The issue under subdivision (a) is not whether an elderly litigant might die before trial or become so disabled that she might as well be absent with trial is called. Provided there is evidence that the party involved is over 70, all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that the party’s “health . . . is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [her] interest in the litigation. (Italics added.)” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534 (Fox)) Notably, Fox made clear that an attorney’s declaration based upon information and belief is sufficient to make this showing. Here, counsel’s declaration has more than met the minimal threshold showing for mandatory trial preference. Moreover, the fact that the current trial date is currently set within 120 days of the hearing on this motion is of no significance. By granting the motion, Plaintiff obtains additional protections preventing continuances except as enumerated and for a limited time.
As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED. Trial remains set for March 10, 2025 at 10 a.m.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: December
5, 2024
CASE NAME: Christian
Derefield v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV01192
MOTION
TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION
MOVING PARTY: Defendants
Concentra Health Services, Inc. and Occupational Health Centers of California
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Christian Derefield
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order compelling the independent medical examination of Plaintiff Christian
Derefield with Dr. Rosabel Young on January 23, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at her
office 10766 Crafton Ave., Suite A, Redlands, CA 92374;
2. Alternatively,
an Order precluding Plaintiff from presenting any evidence of his Parkinson’s
disease, his personal opinion that he could have been reasonably accommodated,
and/or any related testimony or documentation including from his healthcare
providers.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Compel Independent Medical Examination is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff Christian Derefield
(Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Concentra Health Services,
Inc., and Occupational Health Centers of California (Defendants) with six
causes of action for: (1) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability; (2)
Discrimination on the Basis of Age; (3) Failure to Accommodate Disability; (4)
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process to Accommodate Disability; (5)
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and (6) Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants
for over 26 years before Defendants wrongfully terminated his employment.
Plaintiff further alleges that he was 69 years old at the time Defendants
terminated him and that they discriminated against his recent diagnosis of
Pre-Motor Parkinson’s Disease.
On March 21, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer.
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Trial
Preference.
On October 18, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication.
On October 25, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel
Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff. On November 8, 2024, Defendants
filed an Amended Notice and Memorandum in support of their Motion to Compel. On
November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 26, 2024,
Defendant filed a Reply.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Compel Medical
Examination
C.C.P §2032.020(a) states:
Any party may obtain discovery, subject
to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010),
by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action, (2) an agent of any party, or (3) a natural
person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, in any action in which the mental or
physical condition . . . of that
party or other person is in controversy in the action.
(C.C.P §2032.020(a), emphasis
added.)
A motion for an examination shall specify the time, place,
manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the
identity and specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the
examination, and the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer
declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) The Court shall grant
the motion only for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).) “Good
cause is established by facts that ‘appear in the record as a demonstrable
reality.’ [Citation.] Mere speculation, standing alone, will not suffice.” (Sporich v. Super. Ct., supra, 77
Cal.App.4th at 428, quoting People v.
Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1199.) But otherwise, the statute is “silent
on both the nature of good cause and the manner in which it is to be shown.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court In and For
Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 388.) Generally, statutes relating to
discovery procedures, including examinations, “should be liberally construed in
favor of disclosure.” (Harabedian v.
Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 26, 31.)
Yet simultaneously, “cumulative discovery is prohibited,” as is discovery
requested without knowing precisely what one seeks, in an attempt to “obtain
all possible information for the purposes of his case,” i.e., fishing. (Sporich v. Super. Ct., supra, 77
Cal.App.4th at 428; Greyhound Corp. v.
Super. Ct. In and For Merced Cty., supra, 56 Cal.2d at 384.)
Meet
and Confer
The motion must be accompanied by a declaration showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt to arrange an examination by agreement under
Code of Civil Procedure, section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) A
reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more
than bickering with [opposing] counsel…. Rather, the law requires that
counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and
deliberate. (Clement v. Alegre
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Here, the parties met and conferred
over this issue sporadically since June 14, 2024. (Labriola Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 7,
8, 9, 10.) Accordingly, this requirement is met.
ANALYSIS:
Defendants contend there is good cause to order the physical
examination because Plaintiff’s physical condition is at issue and the evidence
sought via the exam is relevant to Defendants’ defenses. Plaintiff argues the
exam is duplicative of evidence Defendants already have, his physical condition
is not in controversy, it is irrelevant since he has waved economic damages, and
the exam would violate his privacy rights.
Here, despite
Plaintiff’s claim that the IME is no longer relevant because Plaintiff has
waived economic damages, Plaintiff’s medical condition remains relevant because
it is an element of the offense. As Defendant rightly points out, Plaintiff ’s
ability to perform the essential duties of his job with reasonable
accommodations not only is an element of the FEHA disability claims, but
remains in dispute. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff’s medical condition
is in controversy.
Additionally, the Court finds that the Defendants have set
forth specific facts establishing good cause for the examination to determine
the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s medical condition at the time of the
alleged termination. The court agrees that since Plaintiff has recently
testified at his deposition that his current physical condition and ability to
perform the essential functions remain the same as it was in October 2023. As
such, his current condition provides circumstantial evidence of his medical
condition in October 2023. In addition, although Defendants’ expert, Dr. Young,
already has evidence on which to base her opinion, the court disagrees with
Plaintiff that these records alone are sufficient and
that anything gleaned from this examination would be extra. Indeed, Dr. Young
indicates it is “critical that I corroborate, where possible, [Plaintiff’s]
self-reported history. . . .To that end, the records are not duplicative of the
materials covered in the examination, but rather serve as a point of
corroboration and comparison.” She requires “medical records and documents” to
corroborate Plaintiff’s self-reported medical history. (See Young Decl. ¶ 11.) As
the jury will be instructed, they are to consider the facts relied upon an
expert on reaching a conclusion. (SEE CACI 219.) Denying an expert critical
facts would undermine such an opinion. Moreover, the proposed scope of the one
to two hour examination sufficiently protects Plaintiff’s privacy interests. As
such, the court agrees that the examination is not duplicative of records
already within Dr. Young’s possession and, therefore, there is good cause to
order the examination.
Here, Defendants have demonstrated good cause to order the
examination.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to
compel independent medical examination. Defendant is requesting January 23,
2025 at 10:00 a.m. and are willing to perform the exam in Redlands. The Court
will here further from counsel regarding the time, date and location of the
exam.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
to Compel Independent Medical Examination is GRANTED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court