Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Anderson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 1:18cv274 SNLJ. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20191114a02 Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM and ORDER STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff brings this personal injury lawsuit against defendant for injuries sustained resulting from an alleged electrical shock at defendant's store. Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff to appear in St. Louis for a medical examination. Plaintiff at first objected to traveling to St. Louis because she lives in Arkansas. In her response memorandum, however, she agreed to appear for the medical examination and requested that t
More

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Plaintiff brings this personal injury lawsuit against defendant for injuries sustained resulting from an alleged electrical shock at defendant's store. Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff to appear in St. Louis for a medical examination. Plaintiff at first objected to traveling to St. Louis because she lives in Arkansas. In her response memorandum, however, she agreed to appear for the medical examination and requested that the Court issue a protective order requiring the following:

1. Plaintiff should be paid for the roundtrip mileage between Dr. Cantrell's office and Paragould, Arkansas in advance, totaling $278.48. 2. Plaintiff should be provided a hotel room near Dr. Cantrell's office depending on the time of the medical exam. 3. The scope of the exam is limited to parts of the body claimed as injured in the case, including the doctor's questioning of plaintiff concerning her social history, marital status, etc. 4. The examination be limited to two hours and Dr. Cantrell's report be produced within 14 days. 5. That Dr. Cantrell may not order or conduct any diagnostic testing or any other procedure.

Notably, defendant did not file a reply memorandum responding to the requested protective order.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to compel (#36) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for a protective order is GRANTED as stated herein.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer