Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV04408, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04408    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs Stephanie McCall (“Plaintiff”) and Timothy McCall filed this action against defendants Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc. (erroneously sued as “Waste Management Inc.”), Salvador Sevilla Ramirez (“Ramirez”), and USA Waste of California, Inc. arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 17, 2020.  On September 7, 2022, Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc. and Ramirez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion to compel the neuropsychological evaluation of Plaintiff by Tony Strickland, a licensed neuropsychologist, within 45 court days or no later than November 18, 2022.  The motion is unopposed.

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff where: (1) the examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive; and (2) the examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).)  Where any party seeks to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Section 2032.220, or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).)

A mental examination shall be performed only by a licensed physician, or by a licensed clinical psychologist who holds a doctoral degree in psychology and has had at least five years of postgraduate experience in the diagnosis of emotional and mental disorders.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.020, subd. (c)(1).)  “The only statutorily authorized justification for ordering a mental examination is that the ‘mental condition’ of the examinee is ‘in controversy.’”  (Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1886.)  In the absence of an allegation that plaintiff has any current mental injury as a result of defendant’s alleged conduct, her present mental condition is not directly relevant.  (Ibid.)  Further, “[m]ental examinations are not authorized for the purpose of testing a person’s ‘credibility.’”  (Ibid.)  The Court shall grant the motion only for good cause shown.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) 

Defendants argue that good cause exist for a neuropsychological evaluation because Plaintiff states in her discovery responses that she sustained a head injury and suffers from depression, mood change, PTSD, memory issues, word finding difficulty, and concentration difficulty as a result of the collision.  Plaintiff did not oppose this motion and there is no dispute that her mental condition is in controversy. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to undergo a mental evaluation by Dr. Strickland.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer to determine a mutually agreeable date within the next 60 days for the evaluation to take place.  The evaluation will take place in the course of one day at Neuropsychological Consultants, Inc., 6101 W. Centinela Avenue, Ste. 240, Culver City, CA 90230 beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.  The evaluation will be a face-to-face examination and any tests or procedures performed will not be painful, protracted, or intrusive.  Defendant will provide Dr. Strickland with all imaging studies.  The examination will potentially include the tests identified on pages 7 to 9 from Exhibit C of Defendant’s motion. 

If Plaintiff is unable to appear for a scheduled appointment, Plaintiff must give 48 hours notice prior to the examination and reschedule a date and time.  Failure to give sufficient notice will result in the Plaintiff being held responsible for any charges due to Plaintiff’s non-appearance.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.