In this ICBC car accident medical exam denied case (De Sousa v. Bradaric, 2011 BCSC 1400) ICBC was refused an order requiring the injury claimant to attend a second medical examination. The court reaffirmed the circumstances under which a second medical examination may be ordered. These considerations were paraphrased in an injury case from a car accident at Courtenay, B.C., Reischer v. Love, 2005 BCSC 580 at para. 14:
· The discretion must be exercised judicially on the basis of the evidence produced;
· A second examination may be appropriate where there is some question which could not have been dealt with on the first examination;
· A second examination is not allowed just because the magnitude of the loss is greater than what was previously known;
· Passage of time alone is not a sufficient reason to order a second examination;
· Where diagnosis of an infirmity is difficult and existing assessments are aged, a court may order a second examination;
· Differences of opinions between medical professionals is not sufficient reason to order a second examination where the first examiner could have discovered the issue on the first examination.
The major factor that personal injury lawyers in British Columbia need to be aware of, and is at the heart of all of these considerations, as stated by the court of appeal in Wildemann v. Webster, (1990), 50 B.C.L.R. (2d) 244, [1991] 1 W.W.R. 276 (C.A.), is that the medical examination is granted in order to put the parties on the basis of equality at trial.
Read my review of the original decision appealed at Vancouver personal injury claim ICBC denied exam. Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness
1 Comment