The Court accepted that the Neurologist in this ICBC car accident injury claim needed to perform a physical exam of the claimant in order to properly prepare a report in response to claimant’s medical experts (Ram v. Chhina, 2015 BCSC 2193). This despite the examination taking place only 2 months before the personal injury trial was scheduled to begin.

This Master’s decision in chambers may well be inconsistent with the long held principle in Kroll v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (1995), 5 B.C.L.R. (3d) 7 wherein the Court stated “true response evidence, does not permit fresh opinion evidence to masquerade as answer to the other side’s reports” ( see my review of Wright v. Brauer, 2010 BCSC 1282 ).

What convinced the court however in this case was the affidavit of the expert which stated,

…I will need to see the plaintiff in order to record her history of past and current symptoms and dysfunction and to confirm findings as noted in the report of Dr. [B] and to assess her prognosis…I also need to interview and examine the plaintiff as patient evaluation is critical in evaluating her claims of injury.

 Posted by ICBC Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.Working for the injured not ICBC or any other insurance company.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Post comment