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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

MACLEOD III DONALD ALAN

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1-20

HILLER EUGENE

HILLER CAROLYN PENNA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

BREITER BRIAN J.

Respondent and Defendant Attorney

MICHAEL CHRISTINA F.

 

Court Documents

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

DECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

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

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

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

Unknown

1/22/2018: Unknown

Notice

4/19/2019: Notice

Ex Parte Application

4/17/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

4/17/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

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

 

Docket Entries

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Trial Continuance); Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant); Eugene Hiller (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Docketat 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue Final Status Conf...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • DocketEx 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant); Eugene Hiller (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Carolyn Penna Hiller (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF DUE DILIGENCE (CCP 415.20)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Donald Alan MacLeod III (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7302    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DONALD ALAN MACLEOD III,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CAROLYN PENNA HILLER, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: ****7302

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL THE CONTINUANCE OF NEUROPSCYHOLOGICAL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

July 22, 2020

On December 19, 2017, plaintiff Donald Alana Macleod III filed this action against defendants Carolyn Penna Hiller and Stephen Eugene Miller (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a January 17, 2016 car accident.  Plaintiff alleges damages stemming from a left side, front pillar impact, severe emotional distress, orthopedic injuries, and neurological injuries.

On December 11, 2019, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Demand for Neuropsychological Examination with Ted D. Evans, Ph.D, a neuropsychiatrist, for January 20, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to this examination continent upon a stipulation.  The stipulation was forwarded on December 14, 2019 and on December 23, 2019, Defendants’ counsel requested changes which included that Plaintiff is free to audio-record the interview portions of the exam but the orally administered testing would be separately audio-recorded and turned over directly only to another authorized neuropsychologist of Plaintiff’s choosing.  These latest changes are the source of the contention underlying this Motion.  

In any case in which a plaintiff is seeking recovery for personal injuries, any defendant may demand one physical examination of the plaintiff where: (1) the examination does not include any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive; and (2) the examination is conducted at a location within 75 miles of the residence of the examinee.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2032.220, subd. (a).)  

The parties do not dispute that Defendants are entitled to an IME with a neuropsychologist.  However, the issue is whether Defendants’ examining physician must produce audio recordings from the orally administered testing portion of the examination directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. ; ; ;In this regard, Defendants’ Motion functions more as a protective order.  

Defendants argue that a neuropsychologist is prohibited from turning over raw data or testing or actual raw results to anyone other than another psychologist who is bound by the same ethical obligations not to reveal this protected information to non-licensed parties.  The data needs to be properly interpreted by a neuropsychologist and the potential disclosure of test instructions and questions challenge the integrity of the exams.  

In opposition, Plaintiff requests the audio recordings of the testing portion be transmitted directly to counsel instead of only to a neuropsychologist before submitting to an exam Plaintiff contends counsel needs to have the ability to verify that the rules for the examination are being followed and to protect the client’s interests.  

The Court finds that production of the audio recordings directly to Plaintiff and his counsel is appropriate. ; ;California Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.610 permits a party submitting to a mental examination to demand “a ;copy of a detailed written report setting out the history, examinations, findings, including the results of all tests made, diagnoses, prognoses, and conclusions of the examiner.” ; ;The language in Paragraph 15 of the proposed Stipulation identifies protective measures to safeguard the Data that are sufficient to alleviate Defendants’ concerns. ; ;(See, e.g., ;Frazier v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe, 2010 WL 447785 (D. Colo., Feb. 3, 2010); ;Mandujano ;v. ;Geithner, 2011 WL 1298786 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 4, 2011.)) ; ;

Based on the foregoing, Defendants Motion is GRANTED in part. ; Plaintiff is to submit to mental examination by Dr. Evans, with ;the audio recordings and written reports ;to be produced directly ;to Plaintiff’s counsel ;for ;use and disclosure in connection with this litigation ;as set forth in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Exhibit 1 of the Declaration of Chance J. Pardon, Esq submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition and Exhibit A submitted by Defendants on Reply. 

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 22nd day of July 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****7302    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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BREITER BRIAN J.