Long v. Hauser

California Court of Appeal Oct 27, 1975 No. Civ. 14183Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there is no unqualified right for a plaintiff's personal physician to be present during a court-ordered medical examination. Furthermore, the court ruled that discovery disputes in arbitration should generally not be challenged via prerogative writs until the arbitration is concluded.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff has an unqualified right to have their personal physician present during a court-ordered medical examination.
Whether the superior court should exercise its discretion to hear petitions for prerogative writs regarding routine discovery matters in arbitration.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Longs claim an unqualified right to their physician’s presence at the pretrial examination. We find no California case establishing such a broad right and have determined none exists.”

“Hauser correctly interpreted Sharff and properly exercised his discretion.”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

This appeal involves discovery. Plaintiffs Evelyn Long and John Long sued Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), alleging damages for personal injuries suffered by Evelyn resulting from Donald Hopster’s negligence.

The parties agreed to arbitration, with Thomas W. Hauser as arbitrator.

By further agreement, Evelyn was to be physically examined by Howell E. Wiggins, M.D., a physician, acting for GEICO. Her attorney,

[492]

a court reporter, her husband and her personal physician accompanied her to Dr. Wiggins’ offices on September 25, 1973. All were present without objection during Dr. Wiggins’ preliminary questioning of Evelyn. Dr. Wiggins, however, forbad Evelyn’s personal physician to be present during the physical examination which was to be conducted in another room. For this reason the examination did not take place.

On January 9, 1974, Hauser ordered Evelyn to submit to an examination by Dr. Wiggins without the accompaniment of her personal physician during any portion of the examination. The Longs refused, and petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to countermand Hauser’s order. We denied the petition without opinion. They next petitioned the superior court and were again denied. They appeal this latest rejection.

Initially, we consider the procedural appropriateness of the Longs’ choice to seek the prerogative writ in the superior court.

The teaching of

Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.

Superior Court,

2 Cal.3d 161, 169-171 [84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854] is that except in extraordinary circumstances, discovery matters should remain at the trial level until the completion of the trial. This principle should also be applied to arbitration. Hauser was serving the function of a trial court, and his ruling on a routine discovery matter should not have been challenged, if at all, until the arbitration ended and the award confirmed. As inadequate as such review may be in some cases, the prerogative writs should only be used in discovery matters to review questions of first impression that are of general importance to the trial courts and the profession, and where general guide lines can be laid down for future cases (Oceanside

Long v. Hauser

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief