In re: MMD Marine, L.L.C.
Filing
91
RULING denying 56 Motion to Compel MRI. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 02/27/2014. (NLT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF
MMD MARINE, L.L.C., AS OWNER/
OWNER PRO HAC VICE OF BARGE
MMD 0901, FOR EXONERATION FROM
OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER 13-202-JJB-SCR
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL MRI
Before the court is the Motion to Compel MRI filed by claimant
Tiger Tugz, L.L.C.
Record document number 56.
The motion is
opposed.1
Claimant
Tiger
Tugz
obtained
a
Rule
35,
Fed.R.Civ.P.,
examination of claimant Capt. Kim A. Chaisson, done with his
consent, on October 24, 2013. The examination was performed by Dr.
Richard L. Corales.
In his report Dr. Corales opined that the
September 16, 2013 MRI he reviewed is of “moderately poor quality”
or “poor quality,” and “a better quality 3T MRI may be helpful,”
and he went on to offer his medical opinions.2
Typically
obtained
by
when
consent,
a
Rule
the
35,
parties
Fed.R.Civ.P.,
also
agree
examination
on
the
is
manner,
conditions and scope of the examination, as well as the time and
1
Record document numbers 74 and 78.
filed a reply memorandum.
2
Claimant Tiger Tugz
See record document number 74-1, Exhibit 1, Independent
Medical Examination report.
place of the examination.3
Apparently Dr. Corales did not advise
Tiger Tugz before the examination that the MRI done on September
16, 2013 was of poor quality and that another MRI may be helpful.
Consequently the examination did not include another MRI.
Dr. Corales is not a treating physician.
Consequently he
cannot order Capt. Chaisson to undergo an MRI, and Tiger Tugz does
not argue otherwise.
In a January 27, 2014 note, Capt. Chaisson’
treating physician, Dr. Donald D. Dietze, acknowledged that a
“second medical opinion” - presumably by Dr. Corales - “requested
a repeat MRI scan with a higher magnet,” and then reported that
“Mr. Chaisson was unable to complete this study because of his
physical size and claustrophobia.”
He concluded that “[t]here is
no medical indication for a repeat MRI scan.”4
On February 2, 2014 Dr. Everett G. Robert, who works with Dr.
Corales, recommended a higher resolution MRI, called a 3.0 Tesla
closed MRI.5
But if Capt. Chaisson is unable to undergo that MRI,
then Dr. Robert recommended the highest resolution open MRI.6
Tiger Tugs had a fair opportunity to have Capt. Chaisson
examined pursuant to Rule 35.
Another MRI was not requested as
3
See Rule 35(a)(2)(B).
4
Record document number 78-1, Exhibit 3.
5
This appears to be the same kind of MRI mentioned by Dr.
Corales.
6
Record document number 81-1, Exhibit B.
2
part of that Rule 35 examination.
And while both of the doctors
working for Tiger Tugz report that the September 16, 2013 MRI is of
moderately poor or poor quality or is inadequate, Dr. Corales
nevertheless was able to use it to reach his opinions.
Issuance of court-ordered Rule 35 examination requires a
showing of good.
In these circumstances, the Tiger Tugz has not
shown good cause to order Capt. Chaisson to undergo another MRI.
Insofar as Drs. Corales and/or Robert contend that the quality of
the MRI affected their opinions, they can explain the basis for
their contention in their discovery depositions and/or to the jury
at trial.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel MRI filed by claimant Tiger
Tugz, L.L.C. is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 27, 2014.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?