Estate of Paul Heenan v. City of Madison et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting 85 Motion for Relief from Heimsness's Failure to Comply with Court Ordered IME. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 4/23/15. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THE ESTATE OF PAUL HEENAN, by
Personal Representative John Heenan,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
THE CITY OF MADISON and MADISON
POLICE OFFICER STEPHEN HEIMSNESS,
In his individual capacity,

13-cv-606-wmc

Defendants.
The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion for relief from Heimsness’s claimed
failure to comply with court-ordered independent medical examination. (Dkt. #85.) In
the motion, plaintiff seeks an order requiring Heimsness to resubmit to an IME, and
specifically require him to (1) answer questions Dr. Grunert believes are necessary for a
full history and (2) sit for a written, standardized psychological test, namely the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test (more commonly referred to as the
MMPI). For reasons explained in the court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for an
IME, the court will rely on the psychiatrist administering the IME to determine the scope
of the examination.
As such, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED,1 with the following restrictions and
caveats:
1. The designated examiner is to limit the examination to only those questions and
tests that he or she believe in good faith will have a bearing in assessing

1

The court declines to award costs to either party under Rule 37(b).

Heimsness’s claims of auditory exclusion or tunnel vision, including, if relevant to
those claims, evidence of PTSD.
2. Absent advance leave of this court, the examiner is not to disclose the results of
the MMPI or any other mental health test or diagnosis, in whole or in part, to
anyone except to the extent the results or diagnosis bears directly on Heimsness’s
claims of auditory exclusion or tunnel vision, and then only to counsel of record.
3. The full results of the examination, test results and file of the designated examiner
should, however, be disclosed to defendants’ designated experts, subject to those
experts agreeing to abide by the same restrictions as to their use and disclosure set
forth in paragraph 2 of this order.
4. Finally, the court reserves on the admissibility of any of the results of the IME,
any of the experts’ opinions based on the results of the IME and any related tests
results, all of which are subject to the terms of the Protective Order (dkt. #16).
Entered this 23rd day of April, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2