Does a plaintiff's mental state constitute a mental state as a claim in a personal injury action for pain and suffering?

Although diligent search has revealed no California cases presenting the same facts and issue as presented here, it has been held elsewhere that the filing of a personal injury action seeking damages for pain and suffering does not, ipso facto, place mental condition in issue as part of the claim. (Tylitzki v. Triple X Service, Inc. (1970) 126 Ill.App.2d 144, 261 N.E.2d 533, [7 Cal.App.4th 1017] 535-536.) In so holding, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order quashing the subpoena which had been issued to compel the plaintiff's psychiatrist to testify. The appellate court stated, "The privilege is too important to be brushed aside when the mental condition of the plaintiff may be only peripherally involved." (Id. 261 N.E.2d at p. 536.)