HAIDER LLC v. MORRIS LLC (2019)

Writ denied.

I would grant and docket this matter to examine the significant and unresolved legal standard for “good cause” sufficient for a court to order an additional medical examination pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1464(A). Although the Court addressed this question in Williams v. Smith, 576 So. 2d 448 (La. 1991), the legislature subsequently amended La. C.C.P. art. 1464(A) to overrule the primary holding in Williams, leaving the precedential value of that decision in doubt. Cf. Mansion v. Cigna, 572 So. 2d 47 (La. 1991) (Mem) (“Judgment of the court of appeal is amended to permit defendant to select an orthopedist of its choice other than Dr. James McDaniel.”); Walls v. Mandeville Mental Health Center, 97-0496 (La. 4/18/97), 692 So. 2d 429 (Mem) (“The trial judge is ordered to allow defendant's expert neuropsychologist to examine plaintiff Susanne Walls for the purpose of determining what portion of her child's injuries may be attributed to injury and what portions may be attributed to environmental or genetic factors.”). I believe that if this Court does not provide appropriate guidelines for the legal analysis of “good cause” under La. C.C.P. art. 1464(A), deference to the district court in determinations thereof is unwarranted. Accordingly, I would grant and docket this matter to permit a full review of the issue presented.

In this taxicab/automobile accident case, plaintiff alleges injury to his lumbar and cervical spine. An orthopedist treated his injuries with epidural steroid injections. Defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination (IME) pursuant to La. Code Civ.P. art. 1464 by a neurosurgeon, who likewise treats spinal injuries and administers said epidural injections. Plaintiff opposed the motion and objected to an examination by a neurosurgeon; however, he stated he would be willing to submit to an additional medical examination by an orthopedist. The trial court denied defendant's motion, and, in a split decision, the court of appeal denied defendant's writ with Judge Dysart dissenting. I find Judge Dysart's dissent persuasive. Additionally, I note that neurosurgeons treat spinal injuries at least as frequently as orthopedists, and thus an independent examination by a neurosurgeon is eminently reasonable in this case.

Because defendant has clearly shown good cause pursuant to La. Code Civ.P. art. 1464 for requiring plaintiff to undergo an IME by its designated neurosurgeon, I find the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion. I would, therefore, reverse the lower courts and grant defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to undergo an IME by the neurosurgeon.

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons. Genevose, J., would grant and assigns reasons.