Motion to Compel IMEs??????
This case arises out of a two-vehicle collision occurring on 07/14/14 in Anaheim.? Plaintiff was traveling eastbound through an intersection on a green light when she was struck by defendant?s police vehicle.? According to plaintiff, defendant did not have emergency lights or sirens on when entering the intersection, and is therefore not entitled to pursuit immunity.
Before the Court this day are two defense motions for an order permitting the taking of a neurological IME and a psychological examination.? Just recently this Court granted a defense motion for release of plaintiff?s prior psychological treatment records, finding that plaintiff had indeed put her mental condition in issue.
Second Medical IME – Granted
In general, every defendant is entitled as a matter of right to one independent medical examination.? CCP ?2032.220(a).? Defendants have already secured an orthopedic IME.? ?An additional IME may be obtained by court order but only upon a showing of ?good cause.?? CCP ?2032.320(a).? Defendants contend there is good cause to also permit a neurological IME based on the constellation of complaints proffered by plaintiff in her written discovery responses.? Where plaintiff’s injuries are complex, multiple examinations may be warranted.? See Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.
A second IME is warranted.? Plaintiff?s injuries are complex, and include varied orthopedic and neurological symptoms.?? Some of plaintiff?s neurological complaints include headaches, dizziness, and radiculopathy.? Plaintiff has listed a number of neurologists as treating physicians, which further supports the propriety of another IME.? Finally, there is the obvious elephant in the room, to wit: no opposition filed by plaintiff to the motion.
Psychological IME ? Granted
Pursuant to CCP ?2032.320(a), the moving party has the burden of establishing ?good cause? for a mental examination, which includes relevancy and legitimate need.? To be relevant, it must be shown that the opposing party has intentionally put his or her condition in controversy.? CCP ?2032.020(a); see Roberts v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 330, 337; Reuter v. Superior Court(1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 332, 342.? Legitimate need means that there are no less-intrusive alternative means available to obtaining the information needed, and the opposing party has not stipulated to permit an examination (?2016.030) or narrow the claims (?2032.320(c)) accordingly.? See Abex Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 755, 758.? When a party claims serious, and continuing, mental anguish/distress, a mental examination is warranted.? Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840-841; Doyle v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1886-1887.
Here, plaintiff claims to suffer from PTSD, anxiety, depression, and panic attacks.? These all qualify for a psychological exam.? In addition, plaintiff discloses that she has sought treatment from mental health professionals as a result of this accident.? This Court recently ordered plaintiff to release prior mental health treatment records due to an overlap in her claimed depression.