Responded to your own report
Out of the civil rule changes in 2010 blossomed a homegrown medicolegal report (MLR) writing industry, a boom for ICBC doctors.  The Rules created a class of  “responsive” reports and “supplementary” reports with deadlines for service and strict guidelines for content. It appears only well informed MLR industry members are likely to obtain the admissible opinion needed to prove or disprove a material fact.  The following is a case in point and a must read for any ICBC personal injury lawyer in BC.
Supreme Court Judge Steeves has limited the application of Rule 11‑6(4)  responsive reports to only written responses to expert opinion of the opposite party (Frahm v. Laci, 2016 BCSC 2128). In other words ICBC wanted their own medical expert to respond to another ICBC expert’s report but the judge said no deal. This judicial interpretative restriction is supported by two other judges, in Luedecke v. Hillman, 2010 BCSC 1538 and  Crane v. Lee, 2011 BCSC 898, but is not contained anywhere in the Rules.
With respect to supplementary reports under Rule 11‑6(6), ICBC was given the heavy burden of showing that failure to admit the report would produce substantial and irremediable prejudice. The Supreme Court was not satisfied that burden had been met by the ICBC lawyers in this case. The “supplementary”report included two passages that state the doctor had not changed her opinion in some areas.  “Bearing in mind the concern that there can be endless addendums from experts, I do not accept the … report is a supplementary report under Rule 11‑6(6)”.
Posted by Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.Serving all of BC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Post comment