Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02089/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02089-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed April 29, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHAD NICHOLAS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., and DOES 1–

50, inclusive, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-02089 RS (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 35 

MENTAL EXAMINATION 

[Re: Docket No. 17] 

Chad Nicholas alleges that he injured his back on September 5, 2007 during the landing of a 

United Air Lines (“United”) flight. His claims against United include chronic pain, an attention 

deficit as a result of the pain, and emotional distress. United now moves to compel a Rule 35 

mental examination of plaintiff, and plaintiff opposes the motion. 

Nicholas has agreed to a defense exam with a neuropsychologist. However, United requests 

that the court compel Nicholas to submit to a three-hour examination with a psychiatrist in addition 

to testing conducted by a neuropsychologist on a different day. United intends to have only the 

psychiatrist, Bernard Rappaport, M.D., act as its expert; it asserts that Dr. Rappaport will use the test 

results from the neuropsychologist, Howard Friedman, Ph.D., to help develop his opinion. 

United argues that Nicholas’s mental condition is in controversy because he claims that the 

events on the flight resulted in “chronic back pain and injury which have caused him an ongoing 

attention deficit which will diminish his current and future earning capacity, and which has strained 

Case 5:09-cv-02089-RS Document 26 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

in a significant fashion his relationship with his wife.” (Mot. 8.) It submits that there is good cause 

for a complete mental examination because the evidence developed thus far—including that 

plaintiff’s treating physician cannot explain why he has not yet recovered and that plaintiff is unable 

to distinguish between stress caused by his pain and stress caused by his job—shows that his claims 

are psychologically based. (See Mot. 3–5.) 

Nicholas counters that he is not claiming a psychiatric injury or disorder. Instead, he asserts 

that he is only claiming “the very limited and discrete injury of pain causing him problems with 

attention and concentration” as well as “garden variety” emotional distress. (Opp’n 1, 4.) He says 

that as a result, there is no need for a “second mental examination” by a psychiatrist. (Id.) 

Under the Federal Rules, where good cause is shown, the court “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). The court finds that Nicholas’s 

mental condition is in controversy because he is claiming long-term interference with both his job 

and marriage as a result of his injuries, which his treating physician is unable to explain. It is also 

clear from the record that both Drs. Friedman and Rappaport are qualified to conduct the exam. 

Finally, defendant has shown good cause to conduct a mental examination because the evidence 

supports that there may be a significant psychological component to Nicholas’s lingering injuries. 

Plaintiff has already agreed to submit to neuropsychological testing, and he presents no 

authority to suggest that defendant cannot opt to have a psychiatrist utilize the results of such testing 

to develop an opinion for use in this case. In fact, at the hearing, he conceded that such a process 

would be acceptable under certain circumstances. 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion. Plaintiff shall submit to an 

examination by Dr. Rappaport on May 4, 2010 and for neuropsychological testing by Dr. Friedman 

on May 10, 2010. Dr. Friedman’s testing protocol shall not exceed eight hours, and pursuant to its 

representation to the court, defendant shall not utilize Dr. Friedman as a testifying expert. 

Furthermore, although defendant represents that Dr. Friedman will not produce a full clinical report 

requiring a clinical interview, the court finds that he may interview Nicholas as necessary to 

determine what tests are appropriate for Nicholas’s case. 

Case 5:09-cv-02089-RS Document 26 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 29, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-02089-RS Document 26 Filed 04/29/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

C09-02089 RS (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Elizabeth D. Rhodes erhodes@kennmark.com, aroque@kennmark.com 

Kymberly E. Speer kspeer@kennmark.com, jcrowley@kennmark.com, 

 snelson@kennmark.com 

Mark B. O'Connor mbo@shea-shea.com 

Michael Murt Shea mms@shea-shea.com 

Michael Murt Shea, Jr mmsjr@shea-shea.com, lo@shea-shea.com, nhancock@shea-shea.com, 

 rr@shea-shea.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-02089-RS Document 26 Filed 04/29/10 Page 4 of 4