If causes are not “divisible” damages will flow.
Ms. K. suffered whiplash type injuries in a 2007 car accident. Her pain became chronic and she became depressed. The consensus of the medical experts at her trial was that “her chronic pain is unlikely to resolve and the focus of her treatment should be on pain management, not cure.” Ms. K. admitted that she had a troubled childhood. also, a few years after her accident she experienced a torn rotator cuff, then shoulder surgery and then a frozen shoulder which were all unrelated to her accident. In K. v. Galasinao, 2015 BSSC 1532, Mr. Justice Blok concluded that “there is a significant...
read moreICBC doctor a “very unhelpful medical witness”.
On December 23, 2015, the BC Supreme Court criticized a defence expert witness for crossing the line into advocacy. In Ferguson v. McLaughlin the plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision caused by the defendant. The defendant’s insurer hired a physician who presented evidence largely discounting the connection of the plaintiff’s complaints to the collision. In rejecting this evidence Madam Justice Griffin made the following pointed comments: [63] The defendant called the evidence of Dr. Duncan McPherson, an orthopaedic...
read moreCourt awards $3 million for brain injury.
On December 14, 2015, the BC Supreme Court assessed damages of $3 million dollars for a plaintiff who sustained a brain injury in a vehicle collision. In Grassick v. Swansburg the plaintiff, who was 16 at the time, was a pedestrian and struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered a moderate to severe brain injury which impacted his cognition and was expected to have permanent repercussions. The Court found that the plaintiff was an ambitious and hard working young man who, but for the brain injury, would have had a successful career in his anticipated...
read moreExpert did not meet with, examine or interview plaintiff = NO WEIGHT.
On November 30, 2015, the BC Supreme Court rejected the opinion of a defence retained doctor who “did not meet with, examine or interview” the plaintiff but nonetheless authored a report opining on the plaintiff’s injuries. In Preston v. Kontzamanis Mr. Justice Parrett provided the following critical comments for medico-legal practices: [125] The defendant provided and relied upon what purported to be an independent medical report (IME) by Dr. Boyle. [126] Dr. Boyle readily acknowledged that he was not asked to and did not...
read moreJury can know about all defence medical examinations.
On November 27, 2015, the BC Supreme Court confirmed that it is fair game for plaintiffs to testify that they attended a defence medical exam where no report was produced and the defence is not relying on opinion evidence from their expert. In Norris v. Burgess the plaintiff alleged injury as a result of two collisions. The defendants denied any injury occurred. In the course of the lawsuit the plaintiff attended a defence medical appointment with a psychiatrist. The defendants “chose not to obtain a medical opinion from the psychiatrist” and did not call him as a witness. In the course...
read more
