Personal injury lawyers are often asked by ICBC and other insurance companies to allow their clients to attend an insurance medical examination. Sometimes an injury claimant may be required by law to attend these medical exams if they are an insured with ICBC and are making a claim. The examination are often called “independent’  but many car accident lawyers would disagree. In this car accident case(Imeri v. Janczukowski)  the injury claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered injuries to her neck, shoulders, back, face, left arm, left hand, left hip, left thigh, left leg, left foot, headaches, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety and depression. The claimant had hired a personal injury lawyer to file the lawsuit.
At the request of the ICBC adjuster the injury claimant attended a medical examination with Dr. Boyle, orthopaedic specialist. The letter of the  ICBC adjuster states that the request was for the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulations. The claimant  attended and Dr. Boyle produced a medical report.  However ICBC  sought a court  order forcing the claimant to attend with a second orthopaedic specialist.
The judge refused the request of ICBC to force this injury claimant to attend another ICBC doctor. The court rightly referred to  Stainer v. Plaza, 2001 BCCA 133, at para. 8, “… the purpose of Rule 30 is to put the parties on an equal footing with respect to medical evidence.”
ICBC faced an uphill battle as  In Rowe v. Kim, medical examination request, Master Keighley at para. 14 states:

A party seeking to have a second examination preformed by a practitioner practicing in the same speciality or discipline as a practitioner who has already examined a person faces an uphill battle: Hothi v. Grewal, [1993] 45 B.C.L.R. (3d) 394 (SC); Hamada v. Semple, [1983] B.C.J. No. 1307 (SC). Successful applicants are those who are able to demonstrate that something has happened since the first examination which could not have been foreseen or which could not, for some other reasons, have been addressed by the first examiner. It also seems to me that material filed in support of the application should indicate why a further examination by the doctor who performed the original assessment is not appropriate.

The evidence did  not set out why it would not be appropriate to send the injury claimant  back to Dr. Boyle and there was no evidence why Dr. McGraw should be preferred over Dr. Boyle. ICBC’s request for a further examination by Dr. McGraw was denied. Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness
Issue: Should ICBC be able to send a car accident claimant to as many doctors as they want?

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Hip Lawyer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment