Oxford v. Riddle et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 21 Motion for Rule 35 Medical Examination; granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 1/24/19. (df)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KARRIE OXFORD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JACOB RIDDLE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________)
Case No.: 18-1163-JWB-KGG
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTIONS
Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Medical Examination
Pursuant to Rule 35 and for Extension of Time. (Doc. 21.) Having reviewed the
submissions of the parties, Defendants’ motion (Doc. 21) is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the present diversity of citizenship action, Plaintiff alleges she was injured
in a motor vehicle accident, which she contends was caused by the negligence of
Defendant Jacob Riddle (“Defendant Riddle”) while he was acting the course of
his employment with Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick
County, Kansas (“Defendant County”). Defendants admit liability, but dispute the
nature and extent of Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff seeks damages for her alleged
personal injuries including medical expenses, past and future economic loss, and
1
pain, suffering, and mental anguish. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks over $500,000 for
future medical expenses. (Doc. 22-1.)
Plaintiff’s deposition occurred on December 14, 2018, following a
postponement she requested. (Doc. 22, at 1.) Defendants requested to have an
independent medical examination, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35, performed on
Plaintiff after her deposition. (Id.) Defendants also requested corresponding
extensions of the IME deadline as well as Defendants’ expert deadline. The
deadline in the Scheduling Order for Rule 35 medical examinations was December
31, 2018 (four days before Defendants filed the present motion) with Defendants’
expert designation deadline set for February 1, 2019. (Doc. 13, at 4, 5.) Plaintiff’s
counsel apparently did not object to the time extensions “as long as the trial date is
unaffected … .” (Doc. 22, at 2; Doc. 23, at 2.)
Defense counsel provided the dates of February 12, 14, 19, and 20, 2019, for
an IME with Dr. Michael Johnson to occur at his office in Salina, Kansas. (Doc.
22, at 2.) Plaintiff, who filed the present case in the District of Kansas and lives in
Carthage, Missouri, objects that Defendants have not shown “good cause” for the
examination, which Plaintiff describes as unnecessarily burdensome and
duplicative. (Doc. 23, at 1.) The Court notes, however, that the Scheduling Order
entered in this case specifically states that “[t]he parties agree that physical or
mental examinations pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 are appropriate in this case.”
2
(Doc. 13, at 5.) Plaintiff also objects that is unduly burdensome for her to be
required to travel to Dr. Johnson’s Salina office because she lives approximately
190 miles from Wichita and approximately 280 miles from Salina. (Doc. 23, at 1.)
ANALYSIS
I.
Standards for Rule 35 Medical Examinations.
Physical and mental examinations are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 35, which
provides in relevant part:
(a) Order for an Examination.
(1) In General. The court where the action is
pending may order a party whose mental or
physical condition … is in controversy to submit to
a physical or mental examination by a suitably
licensed or certified examiner.
…
(2) Motion and Notice; Contents of the Order. The
order:
(A) may be made only on motion for good
cause and on notice to all parties and the
person to be examined; and
(B) must specify the time, place, manner,
conditions, and scope of the examination, as
well as the person or persons who will
perform it.
“Parties have no inherent right to examine the mental or physical health of an
adversary.” Hertenstein v. Kimberly Home Health Care, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 620,
622 (D. Kan. 1999) (citing Chaparro v. IBP, Inc., No. 93-2200-GTV, 1994 WL
3
714369, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 1994)). As provided by Rule 35, such
examinations are compelled only upon a showing of good cause. Id. (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 35(a)).
That stated, “[t]he granting or denying of a motion for a physical
examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” Jones v. Greyhound
Lines, Inc., 2009 WL 1650264, at *3 (D. Kan. June 12, 2009) (citations omitted).
“The rule authorizing physical examination of a party shall be liberally construed
in favor of granting discovery.” (Id. (citing Eckman v. University of Rhode
Island, 160 F.R.D. 431 (D. R.I. 1995)).)
Further, a plaintiff asserting physical injuries “places that … physical injury
clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for [a Rule 35]
examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury.” (Id.
(citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 19, 85 S.Ct. 234, 242–43, 13
L.Ed.2d 152 (1964)).) Even so, Plaintiff notes that Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)
requires a court to limit the frequency or extent of discovery if the discovery
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some
other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. (Doc.
23, at 3-4.)
II.
Issues Relating to the Requested Examination.
4
Defendants contend that Dr. Johnson is a qualified, licensed, and Board
Certified medical doctor and orthopedic surgeon in the state of Kansas. (Doc. 22,
at 3-4.) Defendants argue that because Plaintiff filed her lawsuit in the District of
Kansas and designated Wichita as the place of trial, the travel distance to Dr.
Johnson’s office should not disqualify him as a Rule 35 examiner. (Id., at 4.)
Defendants concede that, under certain circumstances, a court, in its discretion,
may require the moving party to advance travel expenses for the party to be
examined. (Id., citing Eckmyre v. Lambert, No. 87-2222-0, 1988 WL 573858, *12 (D. Kan. 1988).1)
Plaintiff responds that the examination would be “unnecessarily duplicative
and burdensome” and that Defendants failed to show they are unable to obtain the
information by other means, thus “failing to meet [their] burden of showing that
good cause exists for the proposed Rule 35 examinations … .” (Doc. 23, at 1.)
Plaintiff also argues that if the Court allows the examination to proceed,
“circumstances exist here which allow for an observer to be present at the
examinations or for the examinations to be recorded.” (Id.)
A.
The Examination Is Not Unnecessarily Duplicative and
Burdensome.
Eckmyre court held that such an advance could “be deducted from plaintiff's
recovery, if any” and that if the plaintiff failed to recover damages or if the damages
recovered were “less than the travel expenses advanced, plaintiff will reimburse
defendant for the advance, or that part of the advance in excess of the damages
recovered.” 1988 WL 573858, at *2.
1
The
5
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not proposed “any new testing or
any testing that [she] has not already undergone.” (Doc. 23, at 4.) She argues that
she has “already been treated and examined by several doctors[,] all of which are
available to be deposed,” thus making this additional examination unnecessary.
(Id.) Plaintiff continues that Defendants’ motion “should be denied as it has failed
to identify the specific information it needs, explain why that information is
necessary and relevant, or demonstrate why it can only obtain the requested
information through an examination.” (Id.) Plaintiff also notes that, as of the
filing of her responsive brief, Defendants had not even attempted to depose any of
her health care providers. As such, Plaintiff contends she should not be subjected
“to unnecessary burdensome travel and inconvenience.” (Id.)
Defendants respond that Plaintiff has misinterpreted the law on this issue.
Citing Schlagenhauf, Defendants contend that “the pleadings alone” establish
“good cause” for a Rule 35 examination when a plaintiff “in a negligence action
who … mental or physical injury … .” (Doc. 25, at 2 (quoting Schlagenhauf, 379
U.S., at 119).) Doing so “places that mental or physical injury clearly in
controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to
determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury.” Id. The Court agrees.
Plaintiff has clearly placed her physical condition at issue in this case, thus
providing Defendants with the requisite good cause to request a Rule 35 medical
6
examination “to obtain a second medical opinion on the issues of causation,
prognosis and – most significantly – future medical treatment.” (Id., at 3.) A
second opinion cannot be obtained by merely reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records
or deposing Plaintiff’s health care providers or expert(s).
Defendants are also correct that they are not required, as suggested by
Plaintiff, to perform or propose “new testing.” Defendants state that they have
no reason to believe Dr. Johnson will perform anything
other than a standard orthopedic examination. This
certainly could be different than [the] examinations [of
Plaintiff’s expert, who] is an anesthesiologist. This issue
is irrelevant in any event. Two physicians can rely on the
exact same tests and reach different conclusions.
(Doc. 25, at 4.) The Court agrees and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Medical
Examination Pursuant to Rule 35. (Doc. 21.)
B.
Location of Examination.
Plaintiff argues that it is unduly burdensome for her to be required to travel
approximately 280 miles to Salina, Kansas, for the IME “which will likely be
identical to one [she] has already undergone.” (Doc. 23, at 5.) Plaintiff thus
requests that the IME occur either in Wichita or her hometown of Carthage,
Missouri. (Id.) The Court will not order the IME to occur in Missouri. As noted
by Defendants, Plaintiff “has availed herself of the United States District Court [for
the District of Kansas] and it is not unreasonable to require her to travel to Kansas
for an IME.” (Doc. 25, at 5.) Further, Defendants are correct that “Plaintiff cites
7
no legal authority to support the contention that requiring her to drive the
additional 90 miles from Wichita (where the case is on file) to Salina justifies
denying defendants’ Motion.” (Id.)
A similar situation was presented in this District in the case of Jones v.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., wherein a plaintiff from California objected to traveling to
Shawnee Mission, Kansas, for an IME. No. 08-1185-MLB-DWB, 2009 WL
1650264 (D. Kan. June 12, 2009). In that case, the Hon. Magistrate Judge Donald
Bostwick held that
Plaintiff made the choice to file the present lawsuit in
Kansas and requested that the case be tried in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas in
Wichita, Kansas. Absent explicit, written travel
restrictions placed by a licensed physician who continues
to treat Plaintiff, the Court will not entertain any request
to have Plaintiffs IME occur anywhere other than
Kansas.
Id., at *5. Judge Bostwick continued that “[a]bsent a clear showing that Plaintiff is
indigent, Plaintiff will be required to pay for his own transportation to the
examination.” Id. (citing Baird v. Quality Foods, Inc., 47 F.R.D. 212
(E.D.La.1969) and Landry v. Green Bay & Western R. Co., 121 F.R.D. 400, 401
(E.D.Wis.1988)). The Court sees no reason to break with this precedent herein.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to have the IME occur at Dr. Johnson’s
office in Salina, Kansas, at Plaintiff’s expense.
C.
Recording or Observer Present at Examination.
8
Plaintiff requests that that the Court “allow either an observer to be present
at the examination or for the examination to be video recorded.” (Doc. 23, at 10.)
Plaintiff argues that the reasons for recording or having an observer present for the
examination are “readily apparent”:
The independent medical examination is adversarial in
nature. The defendant consults with a doctor of choice.
The defendant unilaterally hires the doctor. The doctor
meets with the plaintiff for a few minutes, conducting a
cursory examination. The doctor subsequently opines
that the treating physician made mistakes in the treatment
or that the treatment was unnecessary. And the doctor
testifies in deposition or at trial against the plaintiff.
(Id., at 8 (citations omitted).) Plaintiff continues that “doctors retained by
Defendant’s [sic] to conduct these examinations are biased” as “[t]heir interest is
not in healing Plaintiff or offering treatment for his injuries,” but rather “in serving
the Defendant’s [sic].” (Id., at 9.)
This issue was also presented in the Jones v. Greyhound decision, discussed
supra. Therein, Judge Bostwick denied the plaintiff’s request to have the
examination videotaped because the plaintiff “failed to provide the Court with any
special circumstances or concerns that would provide adequate justification for
videotaping” or having “an independent third party … permitted” to accompany
him “for purposes of observation.” Jones, 2009 WL 1650264, at *7 (quoting
Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, 235 F.R.D. 553, 557 (D. Conn.
2006)).
9
Similarly herein, Plaintiff has provided no “special circumstances.” The
Court acknowledges Plaintiff’s concerns about the inherently adversarial nature of
these examinations. That stated, this situation occurs in every case in which a Rule
35 examination is allowed. Thus, there is nothing “special” about the
circumstances in which Plaintiff finds herself. This District has recognized that
“the presence of a third party ‘can only threaten to turn the examination into a
more adversarial process than it should be.’” Greenhorn v. Marriott Int’l, 216
F.R.D. 649, 654 (D. Kan. 2003) (quoting Stoner v. New York City Ballet Co., No.
99 Civ. 0196, 2002 WL 31875404, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 2002)). As such, like
in Jones, Plaintiff’s requests are denied. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
D.
Extension of Time.
The deadline for Rule 35 medical examinations expired on December 31,
2018. (Doc. 13, at 5.) The deadline for these examinations is hereby extended
until February 28, 2018. Defendants’ expert witness designations are currently due
on February 1, 2019. (Doc. 13, at 4.) This deadline is extended to March 9, 2019.
The deadline for rebuttal experts is similarly extended to April 12, 2019.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Medical
Examination Pursuant to Rule 35 and for Extension of Time (Doc. 21) is
GRANTED.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of January, 2019 at Wichita, Kansas.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE
HON. KENNETH G. GALE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
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?