Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01790/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01790-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

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

cal 

1 05cv1790

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTURO PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1790 BEN(AJB)

Order Granting Motion to Compel 

[Doc. No. 44]

Defendants have filed a motion to compel the Plaintiff to undergo vocational rehabilitation

testing and interviews pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 35(a) because Defendants

contend that the Plaintiff has placed his future employability and earning capacity in controversy. 

Conversely, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause for the vocational

rehabilitation expert’s interviews and testing, because Defendants’ have failed to demonstrate the need

for the information sought and the lack of means for obtaining it elsewhere. This motion was set for

telephonic hearing on February 19, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. before Judge Battaglia. This hearing date is

hereby vacated as this motion is appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to compel

Plaintiff to submit to testing and interviews by Defendants’ vocational rehabilitation expert is hereby

GRANTED. 

Case 3:05-cv-01790-BEN-AJB Document 50 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the physical and mental

examinations of persons and states:

When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a

party or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is

in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the

party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably licensed

or certified examiner or to produce for examination the person in the

party’s custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion

for good cause shown and upon notice to the person to be examined and to

all parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope

of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 35(a).

2 05cv1790

Background

On September 22, 2003, Plaintiff was working aboard the U.S.S. Shiloh redecorating a

wardroom. While reattaching a power distribution box to the bulkhead, Plaintiff received a severe

electrical shock, which threw him backwards and slammed his body into the bulkhead. Plaintiff was

taken to U.C.S.D. Medical Center where he was admitted and later diagnosed him with Post-Traumatic

Stress Syndrome (PTSS), electrocution at 440 volts (shipboard), possible right shoulder rotator cuff and

labrum tears, probable cervical and lumbar spine sprains/strains, and concussion by history.

After this incident and resulting injuries, Plaintiff did not return to working on the waterfront,

but has worked in several lower paying jobs. In 2004, Plaintiff qualified for Social Security disability

income in the amount of $1,182.00 per month and Plaintiff has also supplemented this income with

various odd jobs. 

Plaintiff alleges and seeks lost earnings of $520,000.00 for the period from when Plaintiff was

injured at age 57 until age 65 at an alleged previous earning level of $65,000/year. Plaintiff also asserts

that he is and was capable of working past the age of 65 prior to his injury, and seeks compensation for

his assertion that he is no longer able to do so in any form. Plaintiff is currently 61 years old.

Discussion

On January 7, 2008, Defendants requested that Plaintiff make himself available for occupational

rehabilitation testing and interview under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a).1 Plaintiff objected and

declined to make himself available. On January 24, 2008, Defendants’s counsel stated that he would

Case 3:05-cv-01790-BEN-AJB Document 50 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 5
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

2

 Storms v. Lowe’s Home Center, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 296 (W.D. Va. 2002).

3 Shumaker v. West, 196 F.R.D. 454 (S.D. W. Va. 2002).

3 05cv1790

withdraw his request under Rule 35(a) if Plaintiff’s counsel would stipulate that employability and

diminution of earning capacity is not in contention or an issue in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel declined

to do so. Defendants argue: 1) the Plaintiff has put his future lost wages and diminution of earning

capacity “in controversy”; 2) Defendants’ have not previously performed an interview with, or testing of

the Plaintiff to determine his future employability or diminution of earning capacity; 3) no party to this

litigation has performed interviews or testing of the Plaintiff to evaluate his future lost wages and

diminution of earning capacity; 4) the only testing of the Plaintiff was conducted three years ago, in

early 2005, as part of Plaintiff’s Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation claim, prior to this

litigation; and 5) at the time of Plaintiff’s deposition by Defendants on October 11, 2006, the issue was

essentially the difference in Plaintiff’s prior and current wage, because the Plaintiff had returned to

work, but shortly thereafter Plaintiff stopped working. Defendants also note, and Plaintiff does not

dispute and has not objection to the qualifications of the expert Defendants have selected.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause for

their request because the information sought is readily available and the Plaintiff is not calling a

vocational rehabilitation expert in his case in chief. The plaintiff cites to numerous cases to support

these propositions, however, the cases cited by Plaintiff are easily distinguishable from the instant case.

The plaintiffs in the Storms2 and Shumaker3

 cases had already submitted to examination and evaluation

by their own vocational rehabilitation experts and the Court reasoned in Storms that the Defendant

would be prejudiced by Plaintiff’ ability to introduce this information and in Shumaker that the tests that

were already performed provided sufficient information was is readily available to the defendant. 

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments for two reasons. First, the necessary

information, Plaintiff’s future lost wages and diminution of earning capacity, was last evaluated 3 years

ago, which was before the Plaintiff returned to work in a different field and prior to Plaintiff’s claim that

he is no longer able to work at all. These two events were significant changes in Plaintiff’s

Case 3:05-cv-01790-BEN-AJB Document 50 Filed 02/20/08 Page 3 of 5
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 4 05cv1790

employability and were not considered in Plaintiff’s previous evaluation and the Plaintiff has placed

both in controversy. Since there are no adequate alternative sources by which Plaintiff’s claims can be

evaluated a finding of “good cause” is warranted.

Having found that Defendants have met both the “in controversy” and “good cause”

requirements for a Rule 35 examination, this Court must also determine whether the nature of the

examination sought by Defendants is appropriate. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, the lack of

available information regarding Plaintiff’s current and future employability, the declaration of

Defendants’ expert, and the lack of any argument or objection on the behalf of Plaintiff with regard to

the requested, the Court finds the nature of the examinations sought by Defendants to be appropriate. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendants have established that the Plaintiff has

placed his future lost wages and diminution of earning capacity “in controversy” in this case and has

further established “good cause” for a physical and mental examination pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

35(a). Since the Plaintiff has failed to assert a valid objection to the use or qualifications of Defendant's

proposed expert, the Court finds Mr. Roger Thrush qualified to conduct the examination of plaintiff in

this case based upon the declarations submitted.

The Court further finds that the examination detailed in Mr. Thrush’s declaration and

Defendants’ motion to compel, is the appropriate method of conducting the testing an evaluation of

Plaintiff’s future lost wages and diminution of earning capacity claims. Defendants’ have adequately set

forth the need to conduct the evaluation of the Plaintiff in this manner.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01790-BEN-AJB Document 50 Filed 02/20/08 Page 4 of 5
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 5 05cv1790

As such, Defendant's motion to compel the vocational rehabilitation examination of Plaintiff,

filed February 5, 2008, is GRANTED. Defendant's shall meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel to set a

date, time and place for the examination to be conducted. The evaluation will proceed forthwith, and 

plaintiff will be provided a copy of the evaluation findings and materials consistent with Federal Rule 26

as soon as possible following the evaluation. Plaintiff will also be entitled to depose Mr Thrush prior to

trial, at his option.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-01790-BEN-AJB Document 50 Filed 02/20/08 Page 5 of 5