ENTRY FORM | ||
| CALENDAR STATUS: Active | ||
 | | |
SC Number: | | S059437 |
CA Number: | | |
Case Title: | | Paul G. Lindell, Jr. v. Alex Kalugin |
Date: | | 04/30/2012 |
Time: | | 01:30 PM |
Location: | | Supreme Court |
Attorneys: | | Michael A. Lehner on behalf of Alex Kalugin and Countryside Construction. Helen C. Tompkins and Kathryn H. Clarke on behalf of Paul G. Lindell, Jr. |
Comments: | | |
Statement of Issues: | | Paul G. Lindell, Jr. v. Alex Kalugin (S059437) (original mandamus proceeding; order from Clackamas County Circuit Court). Relator Paul G. Lindell, Jr., is a plaintiff in a personal injury action brought against defendants Alex Kalugin and Countryside Construction, Inc., based on an automobile accident. Pursuant to ORCP 44 A, defendants seek to have relator undergo a neuropsychological examination. Petitioner challenges, via a petition for writ of mandamus, a trial court order that prohibited relator from having witnesses attend the examination (relator had sought to have either legal counsel or a friend or family member present as an observer) or from making an audio or video recording of the examination. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the petition and issued an alternative writ of mandamus, but only to the extent that relator is seeking an order compelling the trial court to enter an order allowing relator to have legal counsel present at the examination as an observer, under the condition that counsel remain unobstrusive and not interfere with the examination except as necessary to protect relator's legal interests. The issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether a party who is the subject of a neuropsychological examination under ORCP 44 A is entitled to have legal counsel present as an observer during the examination. The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20. |
Justice(s) NOT Participating: | ||