Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01419/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01419-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LAURIE MILLER, BRIAN DIMAS, )

KIM MILLS, ANTHONY SOZA, )

BRUCE CAMPBELL, KELLIE ) 2:13-cv-1419 JWS

BOWERS, TIM HUNTER, BRIAN )

SAYLOR, MICHAEL SCHAMADAN, )

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) ORDER AND OPINION

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE )

OF HIS WIFE, BRANDI SCHAMADAN, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) [Re: Motions at Dockets 271 and 291]

)

vs. )

)

YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP and )

FRANK GATES SERVICE COMPANY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 271 defendants filed a motion to compel certain plaintiffs to participate

in an independent medical examination (“IME”), and certain plaintiffs to participate in an

independent psychological examination (“IPE”). The motion was re-filed under seal at

docket 291. The motion at docket 291 differs from the earlier motion in that it includes

text which had been redacted from the motion at docket 271. Plaintiffs’ response is at

docket 323. Defendants’ reply is at docket 341. Oral argument was not requested and

would not assist the court.

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 359 Filed 08/27/14 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

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek IMEs of all plaintiffs except Michael Schamadan. They seek

IPEs of plaintiffs Saylor, Miller, and Schamadan. The parties are familiar with the

background for this case, and it has been described in earlier orders from the court. 

What is significant for purposes of the present motion are the matters for which the

various plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages from defendants. These are found in

their allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint.1

Plaintiff Hunter alleges that due to defendants’ conduct he has suffered

“significant economic damage, humiliation, worry, distress, and continuing economic

and physical damage.”2

 The allegation that he suffers continuing physical damage

caused by defendants puts his physical condition at issue in the lawsuit. The same or

very similar allegations about worry, distress, and continuing physical injury caused by

defendants are pled by plaintiffs Bowers,3 Miller,4 Dimas,5 Mills,6 Soza,7 Campbell,8

Saylor,9 and Klages.10 These eight plaintiffs’ allegations do not allege any severe

emotional problems caused by defendants for which they seek damages. Rather, in

association with their economic and physical damages, they merely plead “garden

1Doc. 208.

2

Id., ¶ 21.

3

Id., ¶ 27.

4

Id., ¶ 32.

5

Id., ¶ 39.

6

Id., ¶ 47.

7

Id., ¶ 53.

8

Id., ¶ 59.

9

Id., ¶ 65.

10

Id., ¶ 71.

-2-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 359 Filed 08/27/14 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

variety” allegations of worry and distress. Defendants concede that IPEs are not

generally ordered where a plaintiff presents a “garden variety” demand for emotional

distress damages.11 However, plaintiff Schmadan alleges that defendants’ outrageous

conduct caused him “to suffer severe emotional distress12 giving rise to his claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, Schmadan, alone among the plaintiffs,

has pled a claim for the type of emotional distress which might support an IPE.13

Rule 35(a) authorizes district courts to order IMEs and IPEs where two

conditions are met. First, the physical or mental condition must be at issue.14 Second,

the party seeking the examination must show good cause why it is needed.15 Here it is

clear that the physical condition of all plaintiffs, save plaintiff Schamadan, is at issue. 

Conversely, the only plaintiff as to whom his mental condition is at issue is Schamadan.

Plaintiffs argue strenuously that defendants have not shown good cause for any

of the examinations, because defendants have available a multitude of medical records,

treating physician information, and IMEs that were done back when their disability

claims were being processed.16 The court agrees with defendants that this argument is

unavailing, because plaintiffs are seeking damages for physical harm that resulted from

defendants conduct, not just damages for the disabilities which were adjusted by

11Doc. 291 at 6.

12Doc. 208, ¶ 113.

13Defendants cite deposition testimony by plaintiffs Saylor and Miller, which they say

supports the proposition that they are making claims which warrant IPEs. There are two

problems with defendants’ argument. First, Saylor and Miller have not pled claims for emotional

distress of a type that would support an IPE. Second, read in context, the testimony essentially

fleshes out plaintiffs’ physical injuries. Thus, the court does not read the deposition testimony

to take Saylor and Miller’s assertions of emotional issues beyond the level of “garden variety.”

14Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(1).

15Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(2)(A).

16There is considerable irony in plaintiffs’ argument about the adequacy of the prior

IMEs, for generally their position in this litigation is that the professionals who performed the

earlier IMEs did not do a proper job and were acting in league with defendants.

-3-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 359 Filed 08/27/14 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

defendants. Similarly, plaintiff Schamadan is seeking to recover for severe emotional

distress caused by defendants. In sum, defendants have shown good cause for the

IMEs of all plaintiffs, save Schamadan, and good cause for an IPE of plaintiff

Schamadan. 

Plaintiffs protest that they had no input into the selection of the doctors who are

to perform the examinations. Yet, the history of the parties’ efforts to resolve

defendants’ requests for examinations shows that plaintiffs insisted there would be no

examinations, thereby eliminating a chance to work toward selection of mutually

agreeable examiners. Morever, Rule 35 does not require any sort of mutual agreement

upon the identity of the examiners. Finally, plaintiffs do not assert that any of the

examiners identified by defendants are not competent to perform the examination

requested.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motions at dockets 271 and 291 are GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part as follows: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following plaintiffs are required to participate

in an Independent Medical Examination or an Independent Psychological Examination

as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Hunter and Saylor will be examined by Dr. Barry Hendin, located at

Phoenix Neurological Associates, 5090 N. 40th Street, Ste. 250, Phoenix, Arizona

85018. The manner of the examinations will be in-office exams that will include a

patient interview and a physical exam at the above-mentioned location. The scope of

the examinations will be related to plaintiff Hunter’s and plaintiff Saylor’s allegations of

neurological injuries allegedly caused or exacerbated by defendants’ conduct. The

examinations will take place on a date and time to be announced that is mutually

convenient for the doctor and plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiffs Saylor, Mills, Campbell, Dimas, and Soza will be examined by

Dr. Douglas Hartzler, located at Arizona Orthopedic Associates, 690 N. Cofco Center

-4-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 359 Filed 08/27/14 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

Court, Ste. 290, Phoenix, Arizona 85008. The manner of the examinations will be inoffice exams that will include a patient interview and a physical exam at the abovementioned location. The scope of the examination will be related to the plaintiffs’

allegations of orthopedic injuries allegedly caused or exacerbated by defendants’

conduct. The examinations will take place on a date and time to be announced that is

mutually convenient for the doctor and plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiff Miller will be examined by Dr. Paul Sawrey, located at Biltmore

Cardiology, 4444 North 32nd Street, Ste. 175, Phoenix, Arizona 85018. The manner of

the examination will be an in-office exam that will include a patient interview and a

physical exam at the above-mentioned location. The scope of the examination will be

related to plaintiff’s alleged cardiac injuries allegedly caused or exacerbated by

defendants’ conduct. The examinations will take place on a date and time to be

announced that is mutually convenient for the doctor and plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff Schamadan will be examined by Dr. Pamela Wilson, Ph.D.,

ABPP/CN, located at 8035 N. 85th Way, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258. The manner of the

examinations will be an in-office exam that will include a clinical interview and

psychological testing at the above-mentioned location. The scope of the examination

will be related to plaintiff Schamadan’s alleged psychological injuries comprising the

severe emotional distress allegedly caused by defendants’ conduct. The examinations

will take place on a date and time to be announced that is mutually convenient for the

doctor and plaintiff.

DATED this 27th day of August 2014.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-

Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 359 Filed 08/27/14 Page 5 of 5