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)

Download PDF
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?