Case Number: KC065518 Hearing Date: April 17, 2014 Dept: 93

Defendant Patricia Rashid Hakim’s Motion for Leave to Take Mental Examination of Plaintiff by is GRANTED. Plaintiff William Alan Millon is ordered to submit to a mental examination by David Sheffner, M.D. on April 10-11 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at 320 Superior Ave., Newport Beach, CA, 92663.

In Doyle v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeals held:
The only statutorily authorized justification for ordering a mental examination is that the “mental condition” of the examinee is “in controversy.”
. . .
The mental condition of a person who is suffering ongoing mental distress is clearly “in controversy” in an action seeking damages for that ongoing mental distress. The “controversy” surrounding such a person’s mental condition includes not only the nature and extent of the person’s current mental injury but also the actual cause of this injury. In contrast, where a plaintiff alleges that she is not suffering any current mental injury but only that she has suffered emotional distress in the past arising from the defendant’s misconduct, a mental examination is unnecessary because such an allegation alone does not place the nature and cause of the plaintiff’s current mental condition “in controversy.”

(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1878, 1887. In Doyle, the Court ruled that an employee suing her supervisor for harassment could not be compelled to submit to a mental examination because her allegation of mental injury was limited to a specific time in the past and she was not alleging a current mental injury. Id. at 1885-87. The Doyle court distinguished the allegation of past mental injury from that of an ongoing mental injury, such as alleged in Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 838. Id. at 1885-86.

The issue here is whether Millon’s claims of mental injury are limited to the past or can be considered ongoing such that he has placed them in controversy in this action. A portion of Millon’s claimed damages are for his mental problems. This includes treatment he received at Kaiser Permanente for a suicide attempt and aggravation of his previously existing substance abuse challenges and psychological problems. Motion, Exh. B (“Millon Depo.”), pp. 63:15-66:9. Millon specifically testified at his deposition that his anxiety attacks, increased substance abuse and depression were related to the accident. Motion, Millon Depo., pp. 60:16-66:9. Millon’s deposition testimony indicates that his alleged mental injuries are ongoing. Although he testified that he is “doing better,” Million is still taking medication for depression. Motion, Millon Depo., pp. 66:16-67:1. Furthermore, Millon was examined in December 2013 by a psychiatrist, Dr. J. Wesley Boyd, who opined that the “accident was a substantial factor in the worsening of Mr. Millon’s depression.” This claimed aggravation of Millon’s depression was reiterated by his attorney in the meet and confer letter sent to Hakim’s attorney with respect to the proposed mental exam. Reply, Favata Decl., Exh. A. Plaintiff is seeking over one million dollars in damages. Plaintiff is claiming, in part, that his pre-existing psychological problems were aggravated due to the accident culminating in a suicide attempt. Plaintiff continues to get treatment for depression as he continues to take medication for depression. This case is distinguishable from a case where a plaintiff claims a very limited period of time where she suffered psychological injury and sought treatment. In the instant case, plaintiff’s psychological issues are solidly in controversy. Therefore, good cause exists for Millon to submit to a mental examination.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.