Baugher v. Kadlec Health System

Filing 95

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS. Defendants Motion for Expedited Hearing ECF No. 83 is GRANTED. Defendants Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination ECF No. 84 is GRANTED; Plaintiff shall make herself available for examination at a reasonable ti me and place within 21 days of this Order. Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Production of Medical Records ECF No. 87 is GRANTED IN PART; within 21 days, Plaintiff shall provide her medical records (or sign a stipulation granting access to the same) for the two years immediately preceding this Order. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 92 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw ECF No. 94 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 93 is WITHDRAWN. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

PAMELA A. BAUGHER,
NO: 4:16-CV-5095-TOR
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
9
10

v.
KADLEC HEALTH SYSTEM dba
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

11
Defendant.
12
13

BEFORE THE COURT are (1) Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Hearing

14

(ECF No. 83); (2) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Independent Medical

15

Examination (ECF No. 84); (3) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery

16

Responses and Production of Medical Records (ECF No. 87); (4) Plaintiff’s

17

Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 92); (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF

18

No. 93); and (6) Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 94).

19

The motions were submitted without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the

20

motions and the file therein, and is fully informed.

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS ~ 1

1

DISCUSSION

2

A. Motion to Compel Medical Examination (ECF No. 84)

3

For “good cause” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35, “[t]he

4

court where the action is pending may order a party whose mental or physical

5

condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental examination by a

6

suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(1),(2). The “in

7

controversy” and “good cause” requirements “are necessarily related.”

8

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 119 (1964). This generally requires “an

9

affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination

10

is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for

11

ordering each particular examination.” Id. at 118.

12

“A plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury . . .

13

places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the

14

defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and

15

extent of such asserted injury.” Id. at 119. In contrast, a bare allegation that a

16

party is not mentally capable (e.g., of operating a bus) does not establish “good

17

cause” where there is “[n]othing in the pleadings or affidavit[s] [that] would afford

18

a basis for a belief that [the party] was suffering from mental or neurological

19

illness warranting wide-ranging psychiatric or neurological examination.” Id. at

20

120; see also Houghton v. M & F Fishing, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 666, 668 (S.D. Cal.

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS ~ 2

1

2001) (mental state may not be in controversy when Plaintiff makes only a “garden

2

variety” claim of emotional distress, but courts will order mental examinations

3

when there is a cause of action for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional

4

distress).

5

Plaintiff claims Defendant’s conduct “was a very deliberate—and a very

6

knowing—infliction of tremendous emotional and physical harm . . . .” ECF No.

7

31 at 3 (capitalization changed). Plaintiff’s prayer for relief includes emotional

8

pain and suffering. ECF No. 1 at 2. Consequently, Plaintiff has placed her mental

9

/ emotional state in controversy by claiming a right to relief for emotional

10

suffering. The Court finds good cause exists for an examination of Plaintiff.

11

Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 119 (internal citation omitted) (“A plaintiff in a

12

negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury, places that mental or

13

physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause

14

for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury.”).

15
16
17

B. Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Production of Medical
Records (ECF No. 87)
Defendant complains that Plaintiff inadequately answered the interrogatories

18

propounded and failed to produce relevant medical records. ECF No. 87 at 3.

19

Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the responses given for the interrogatory are

20

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS ~ 3

1

sufficient, albeit difficult to follow. 1 However, Plaintiff must produce relevant

2

medical records or give Defendant access to such. The requested information may

3

be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim as the medical records are necessary to evaluate

4

Plaintiff’s claims of emotional distress. Ten years of records seems to be overly

5

broad, whereas two full years would reasonably encompass the time leading up to

6

the dispute and afterward. Although both parties may be better served, the Court

7

declines Defendant’s request to Order Plaintiff to sign a stipulation allowing

8

Defendant to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records. ECF No. 87 at 9. The method of

9

production is Plaintiff’s choice.

10

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

11

1. Defendant’s Motion for Expedited Hearing (ECF No. 83) is GRANTED.

12
13
14

1

15

concern as to this point is moot. ECF Nos. 92 at 1; 87 at 7. Moreover, many

16

purported deficiencies in Plaintiff’s response will be cured by providing the

17

responsive medical records. Defendant also complains that Plaintiff described her

18

condition at the time of hospitalization, rather than listing the damages resulting

19

from Defendant’s conduct, ECF No. 87 at 6, but Plaintiff has already stated she

20

seeks damages for emotional harm elsewhere. See ECF No. 1 at 2.

Plaintiff has indicated she will not introduce witnesses, so the Defendant’s

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS ~ 4

1

2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examination (ECF

2

No 84) is GRANTED; Plaintiff shall make herself available for

3

examination at a reasonable time and place within 21 days of this Order.

4

3. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Production of

5

Medical Records (ECF No. 87) is GRANTED IN PART; within 21

6

days, Plaintiff shall provide her medical records (or sign a stipulation

7

granting access to the same) for the two years immediately preceding this

8

Order.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 92) 2 is DENIED.

9
10

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED.

11

6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 93) is WITHDRAWN.

12

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to

13

counsel.

14

DATED February 24, 2017.

15
16
THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

17
18
19

2

20

should reconsider, so it is denied. ECF No. 92.

The Motion for Reconsideration does not specify an order that this Court

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS ~ 5