DANIEL LUCAS VS TERESA GILLCRIST ET AL

Motion to Compel Mental Examination

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff Daniel Lucas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Teresa Gillcrist and James Gillcrist (“Defendants”).  The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 8, 2017.

On December 20, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a neuropsychological examination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320.

Trial is set for February 6, 2020. 

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to appear for a neuropsychological examination because Plaintiff has placed his mental health into question.

///

///

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220, subdivision (a) states: “In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff, if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive. (2) The examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.”

California Code of Civil procedure section 2032.310 states: “(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court. (b) A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.320 states: “(a) The court shall grant a motion for a physical or mental examination under Section 2032.310 only for good cause shown. . . . (d) An order granting a physical or mental examination shall specify the person or persons who may perform the examination, as well as the time, place, manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination.”

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue good cause exists for a neuropsychological examination because Plaintiff alleges a variety of cognitive injuries including a traumatic brain injury.  (Motion, p. 4:7-4:23.) The Court finds there is good cause for grant the motion.  Plaintiff has placed his mental state at issue by seeking damages due to Plaintiff’s mental injuries.

The Court recognizes that Defendants request the examination to take place on April 16, 2020.  The Court also recognizes the reality of litigation and the scheduling of mental examinations, such as the one sought here, require time.  Trial is set for February 6, 2020.  As such, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to continue trial and the final status conference so this examination may go forth.  However, the Court does not find there to be good cause to continue any other discovery cut-off date.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for medical examination by psychologist Ari Kalechstein as follows:

Date: April 16, 2020.

Time: 10:30 a.m.

Location: 11835 Olympic Blvd., Suite 1265E, Los Angeles, California 90064.

Nature: this examination shall consist of a variety of tests, including Auditory Consonant Trigrams, California Verbal Learning Test – II, Category Fluency, Category Test, Color Trails – Parts 1 and 2, Continuous Performance Test, Delis – Caplan Executive Function Test, Dot Counting Test, Finger Tapping Test, Grooved Pegboard Test, Judgment of the Line Orientation, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2, Paced Serial Addition Test, Personality Assessment Inventory, Phonemic fluency, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Rey—Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, Ruff Figural Fluency Test, Selective Reminding Test, Semantic Fluency, SIMS, Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, Stroop Test, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, TOMM, Trailmaking Test – Parts A and B, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, Wechsler Intelligence Scale (Adult/Child version), Wechsler Memory Scale – IV, Wide Range Achievement Test – 3, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Woodcock—Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement – 3, Word Memory Test.  No diagnostic test or procedure is to be painful, protracted, or intrusive.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.