Case Number: BC636629 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 97

43

guadalupe luna mejia,

Plaintiff,

v.

alexander ramos, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC636629

Hearing Date: January 16, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendants’ motion for order granting leave to take second medical examination

BACKGROUND

This action involves a motor vehicle accident between Plaintiff Guadalupe Luna Mejia (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Alexander Ramos (“Ramos”) that occurred on October 8, 2014.

Defendants Ramos, Lourdes Vasquez, and Sedruol, Inc. dba Edible Arrangements (“Defendants”) move for an order granting leave to take the second medical examination of Plaintiff to be conducted by Charles D. Rosen, M.D., who specializes in orthopedic surgery, on January 31, 2018. Defendants argue that Plaintiff previously appeared for her examination with Dr. Rosen, but suspended the examination under the belief that a female observer from his healthcare team must be present before he proceeded with the examination. This issue regarding a female chaperone was previously resolved by the Court on October 19, 2017.

Defendants now move to compel Plaintiff’s second examination with Dr. Rosen without the requirement that another female observer be present. Defendants argue that Plaintiff refuses to be produced for a medical examination on the basis of the Court’s October 19, 2017 order.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CCP §2032.220(a), in a case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff. For subsequent examinations, the defendant must obtain leave of court. (CCP §2032.320(a).) The court shall grant a motion for physical or mental examination only for good cause shown. (CCP §2032.320(a).)

DISCUSSION

The Court finds there is good cause to granting this motion and compelling the second medical examination of Plaintiff by Dr. Rosen.

The only reason why Plaintiff’s medical examination with Dr. Rosen did not proceed was because Dr. Rosen believed that he could not conduct the examination without a female chaperone from his medical staff present. Thus, while Plaintiff appeared for her medical examination with Dr. Rosen, it did not actually go forward. Now that this issue has been resolved by way of motion, Defendants and Dr. Ramos are willing to proceed with the medical examination without one of Dr. Rosen’s female staff members present.

There is also good cause to granting this motion because the medical examination seeks relevant information about Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff claims headaches, neck, back, and left shoulder injuries, as well as injuries secondary to orthopedic injuries such as anxiety, depression, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. (Mot. at Ex. D at form interrogatory nos. 6.2, 6.7.) Plaintiff has put her physical condition at issue in this lawsuit. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864; City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1951) 37 Cal.2d 227, 232.) Accordingly, there is good cause to compel the second examination of Plaintiff, as Plaintiff’s physical injuries and the extent of Defendant’s liability for her damages are relevant to the action.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons state above, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s second examination is granted.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order.