Wood v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Filing
16
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/12/15 ORDERING that the Stipulation Regarding Neurological Examination of Plaintiff is approved. (Becknal, R)
TIMOTHY J. RYAN, SBN 99542
REBEKKA R. MARTORANO, SBN 173600
MARYSIA OKREGLAK, SBN 199148
THE RYAN LAW GROUP
2379 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95833
Telephone: (916) 924-1912
Facsimile: (916) 923-3872
tryan@ryanlg.com
rmartorano@ryanlg.com
mokreglak@ryanlg.com
Attorneys for Defendant
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
CHARLES WOOD,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
14-1421 KJM CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING NEUROLOGICAL
EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
The parties in the above-captioned matter hereby stipulate as follows:
1.
Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. has requested a neurological examination of
plaintiff Charles Wood (“Plaintiff”). The scope of the examination will be to evaluate Plaintiff’s
claim of an alleged concussion injury suffered in an incident on May 2, 2012, as alleged in
Plaintiff’s complaint and deposition testimony.
2. The examination will be conducted by Eric Van Ostrand, M.D., a board certified
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
neurologist who is licensed to practice in California, and is qualified to conduct the requested
examination.
3. The estimated time for the examination is 2 hours.
4. The examination will be a standard neurological examination and will include the
following components: taking a medical history; performing a physical examination which may
include activities such as the examination of sensory responses, motor reflexes and gait; and
examining Plaintiff’s language skills, memory, visual/spatial abilities and concentration.
5. The examination is scheduled to take place on April 20, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. at the
following location: 1111 Howe avenue, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95825.
6. Plaintiff will be charged a cancellation fee of $625 for a failure to appear for the
examination, or for a late cancellation with less than five days notice (excluding holidays and
weekends).
7. The provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 35 subdivision (b) shall
apply and are incorporated by reference in this stipulation.
8. The examining doctor’s report will be in writing and will set out in detail the
examiner’s findings, including diagnosis, conclusions, and the results of any tests given to or
taken by the Plaintiff.
9. Within a reasonable time following the examination, not to exceed 60 days, Defendant
shall deliver a copy of the examiner’s report, together with like reports of all earlier examinations
of the same condition and all medical record reviews prepared by, relied upon, or reviewed by
the examining doctor with regard to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s condition. If the examiner’s
written report is not provided, the court may exclude the examiner’s report and testimony at trial.
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
10. The examining doctor shall be subject to deposition in this proceeding regarding his
retention, examination, document review, and findings.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: March 6, 2015
ASHTON & PRICE, LLP
By:
Dated: March 6, 2015
/s/ Edward Schade
EDWARD SCHADE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHARLES WOOD
THE RYAN LAW GROUP
By:
/s/ Rebekka Martorano
REBEKKA R. MARTORANO
Attorneys for Defendant
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation Regarding Neurological Examination of
Plaintiff is approved.
Dated: March 12, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?