This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 00:03:15 (UTC).

DONALD ALAN MACLEOD III VS CAROLYN PENNA HILLER ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/19/2017 DONALD ALAN MACLEOD III filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CAROLYN PENNA HILLER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7302

  • Filing Date:

    12/19/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MACLEOD III DONALD ALAN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

HILLER EUGENE

HILLER CAROLYN PENNA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BREITER BRIAN J.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

MICHAEL CHRISTINA F.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

8/9/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

Minute Order

4/17/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

4/17/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

4/19/2019: Notice

Unknown

1/22/2018: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

1/22/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

12/28/2017: DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

12/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Trial Continuance); Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant); Eugene Hiller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue Final Status Conference, Trial Date and All Related Cut Off Dates) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue Final Status Conf...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (to continue Final Status Conference, Trial Date and All Related Cut Off Dates); Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant); Eugene Hiller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant); Eugene Hiller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC687302    Hearing Date: January 15, 2020    Dept: 27

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL MEDICAL EXAMINATION

On December 19, 2017, plaintiff Donald Alan MacLeod III (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Carolyn Penna Hiller and Stephen Eugene Hiller for injuries sustained from an automobile accident on January 17, 2016. Plaintiff claims the following injuries: (1) head concussion with hearing issues; (2) cervical/thoracic spine; (3) bilateral wrist; (4) pain to left hip area; (5) coup-contrecoup injury; (6) severe post-concussion syndrome; and (7) tinnitus. Plaintiff has already undergone two physical exams, by Dr. Brian Bashner, an orthopedist, on March 15, 2019, and by Dr. John J. Rehm, an ear, nose, throat (“ENT”) specialist, on September 11, 2019. The parties have also stipulated to a neuropsyche examination with Dr. Ted Evans on January 20, 2020. Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to undergo a physical examination with Dr. Barry Ludwig, a neurologist.

“Nowhere does the Legislature specifically limit the number of available examinations, either mental or physical. The authoritative discovery commentators agree that multiple defense examinations are permitted on the necessary showing of good cause.” (Shapira v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1249, 1255.) A showing of good cause requires “that the party produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) “The requirement of a court order following a showing of good cause is doubtless designed to protect an examinee’s privacy interest by preventing an examination from becoming an annoying fishing expedition.” (Ibid.)

Defendants argue good cause exists for this third physical examination by Dr. Ludwig because orthopedic and ENT specialists do not have the ability to evaluate Plaintiff’s alleged injuries of cognitive issues, coup-contrecoup injury, and post-concussive syndrome issues. Defendants admit that ENT specialists can evaluate tinnitus and some causes for dizziness, but stress that neurologists have expertise in cognitive function. Defendants further state that Plaintiff has been treated and continues to be treated by a neurologist.

Plaintiff argues that an exam by Dr. Ludwig would be duplicative of a previous exam which addressed “essentially identical conditions” involving dizziness, vertigo, and concentration issues. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s demand is procedurally deficient because it fails to adequately specify the manner, diagnostic tests and procedures, conditions, scope and nature of the exam. Plaintiff further states that the parties have already stipulated to a neuropsyche exam with Dr. Ted Evans, and thus a neurological exam would be unnecessary. Plaintiff attaches the medical report authored by Dr. Rehm, the ENT specialist, which shows that Dr. Rehm did administer some neurological tests and evaluated Plaintiff for Romberg, cerebellar dysfunction, dysdiadochokinesias. Plaintiff also underwent finger-to-nose and heel-over-shin testing and had motor and sensory examinations of the upper extremities.

On reply, Defendants attempt to remedy their deficient notice by identifying the types of tests that would be performed by Dr. Ludwig, including mini-mental state exams and Montreal Cognitive Assessments. Defendants also distinguish the stipulated neuropsyche exam with Dr. Evans from the proposed neurological exam with Dr. Ludwig by describing the neuropsyche exam as dealing with processing and functional issues, whereas Dr. Ludwig would be examining changes in the brain and neurological system from a physical standpoint.

The orthopedist, ENT specialist, and neuropsychologist have different specialties from the neurologist, justifying an examination by Dr. Ludwig. According to section 2032.220, a demand shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination. Defendants’ demand as modified by the reply brief is sufficient.

Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit to an examination by Dr. Barry Ludwig at 2811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 508, Santa Monica, California, and any x-ray facility or laboratory within the immediate vicinity of his office on January 29, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. The examination will not be painful, protracted, or intrusive and will include a physical exam as well as a mini-mental state exam and Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.