This was application to have the claimant attend a defence medical examination with a rheumatologist, Dr. Wade in relation to a car accident injury claim.  There have been a number of expert reports tendered by the claimant, and two defence medical examinations done by agreement by Dr. Sovio, an orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Dahi, a psychiatrist.

The claimant provided most of his reports to ICBC some 51 days before the expiry of the 84‑day limit.  There was no evidence that attempts were made by the defence to obtain alternate experts who might have been available for the expiry of the 84‑day deadline and, in fact, able to present a fulsome report prior to the 84‑day deadline as well.

The defence acknowledged that they were not seeking a rebuttal report, which would have a 42‑day disclosure deadline.  Both the letter of their chosen expert, Dr. Wade, and their submissions say that they are not aiming at a rebuttal report but rather are aiming at a report of first instance to substantively address the issue of fibromyalgia, which they say has only now arisen in the rheumatologist’s report of the claimant delivered about 51 days before the 84‑day deadline.
As Master Caldwell stated orally,

[9]  All of those things taken into account mitigate against granting the order sought today.  There is no significant explanation as to why there was the delay from September 13 through until October or November.  There is no evidence of attempts to find other experts who could have fit the bill and provided reports before 84 days.  There is no evidence or argument presented to me as to whether this should be considered a first or a second report in a related field. (Sund v. Blue Hawks Transport Ltd.,2017 BCSC 2416)

Posted by Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A LL.B.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Post comment