The claimant was a pedestrian struck and injured by a motor vehicle. This was an application by the defendant for an order that the claimant attend an appointment with a radiologist registered with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada of her choice to undergo an X-Ray examination of her legs and right shoulder and to provide the X-Ray reports to the defence lawyer.
Rule 7‑6(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules provides that the court can order an examination by a medical practitioner or other qualified person if the mental or physical condition of a person is at issue in an action.
The claimant consented to an independent medical examination by an orthopedic surgeon. The claimant was seen at Royal Inland Hospital and had surgery to both a broken leg and a broken shoulder. The claimant has had four X-Rays taken of her right knee, two of her right shoulder, two of her right tibia and right fibula, two of her chest, and a CT scan.
In denying the request for a court ordered x-ray the court found,
 Further, I take the plaintiff’s point that if the plaintiff chooses to go to trial without updated X-Ray imaging and proceed on the basis of expert reports produced without such imaging, then, in my view, there is no basis on which I should order that the defendant have the benefit of this intrusive testing. I will use the plaintiff’s word.
 I should add that the parties were unable to point me to any specific case that deals with this kind of application for such intrusive tests. I am not saying that it would not be ordered if there was a proper basis for it, but on the circumstances before me today, I am not satisfied that there has been any proper basis shown or any need for the X-Rays and the application is dismissed.(Tani v. Baker,2017 BCSC 1684)
Posted by personal injury lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.