2014-00170698-CU-PA

My Tran vs. County of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examinations

Filed By: Fessenden, Carl L.

Defendants County of Sacramento, et al.’s (“County”) motion to compel plaintiff Tran to submit to a second independent medical examination (“IME”) by County is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Factual Background

This is a personal injury action arising out of a 2013 rear-end motor vehicle accident, after which plaintiff claimed injuries to her neck and back. County conducted an IME

of plaintiff and her alleged neck and back injuries in 2015. Sometime thereafter, plaintiff for the first time attributed an eye injury to the 2013 accident and according to County, she later “withdrew” this claim.

In early 2017, plaintiff was involved in a second motor vehicle accident which caused injuries to her neck, back and knees. She filed against the parties who drove and owned the other vehicle in the 2017 accident (i.e., Shoop and Kinniburgh (collectively “Shoop”)) a second lawsuit which has now been consolidated with the present one.

County maintains that plaintiff is now re-asserting her claim of an eye injury as a result of the 2013 accident. Trial is now set to commence on 4/23/2018.

Moving Papers. County now seeks to compel a second IME of plaintiff in order to evaluate (1) the extent to which the 2017 accident may have exacerbated the neck and back injuries attributed to the 2013 accident and (2) the recently re-asserted eye injury claim which was not disclosed until after the original IME in 2015.

Opposition. Plaintiff opposes, arguing County has “failed to establish good cause to warrant a second duplicative examination by defense expert…which exceeds the scope of allowable discovery and is cumulative and duplicative.” In particular, the opposition points out that the IME now sought by County will actually be the fourth overall IME to which plaintiff will have had to submit (i.e., two by County in the first action and two by Shoop in the second) and insists this unreasonably excessive and burdensome.

Analysis

The court finds that County has established sufficient “good cause” to justify a second IME of plaintiff. The opposition’s arguments that plaintiff is being forced to undergo a fourth IME in this case is unavailing since (1) it overlooks the fact that plaintiff herself has chosen to file two separate lawsuits against two separate sets of defendants, each of whom are entitled to prepare their cases for trial regardless of the order consolidating the actions and (2) there is nothing per se impermissible or improper about each set of defendants conducting two IMEs upon a sufficient showing of good cause.

Accordingly, plaintiff shall submit to the second IME as demanded by County as soon as practicable in light of the imminent trial date of 4/23/2018.

The court expects the parties to meet-and-confer to find a mutually-agreeable date and time for this IME given the time limitations, without the need for further judicial intervention.