BLOG

Recent Posts

Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver

ICBC Personal Injury Lawyers

Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver 604-602-9000

Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver know the importance of expert medical evidence being presented on behalf of an ICBC car accident injury victim. But ICBC defence lawyers know that they need to counter the experts hired by Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver with their own experts. Experts are supposed to assist a judge with their special medical and other knowledge on issues related to the extent of an ICBC injury victim’s injuries, how they affect the person mentally and physically and what the injury victim’s prognosis is for recovery. Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver explain to ICBC car accident injury victims that they will be examined by medical and other experts hand picked by ICBC.

Contact our team immediately to get a free consultation with us so you can have your case assessed at no charge and learn what our strategy is to get you the largest fair personal injury settlement.

Top ICBC i Vancouvernjury lawyers in

Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver

What happens when the injured Plaintiff in a Vancouver car accident case does not trust the expert ICBC selects to examine them on behalf of the defendant?

Rules For Independent Medical Examination – Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver

A recent disputed independent medical examination application in Wohlleben v. Dernisky caught the interest of our Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver. Master Harper held that the Plaintiff did not get to pick the ICBC defence medical expert who examined her because this expert had been criticized by some judges in past ICBC cases he testified in.

[7]             There is no demonstrated misconduct on the part of Dr. Dost, and indeed, the plaintiff does not suggest there is any. The plaintiff says that she finds herself unable to repose her trust and confidence in Dr. Dost and offer him the level of cooperation necessary for the examination to reach a meaningful conclusion. This evidence is simply a bare assertion and not based on any evidence of misconduct.

[9]             I quote from Sinclair v. Underwood, 2002 BCSC 354, at para. 5:

[5]        The authorities show that the purpose of a defence examination is to put the parties on a basis of equality. It is not for the Plaintiff to decide which doctor can examine him or her on behalf of the Defendant. And it is for the Trial Judge to determine “the fairness, partiality, credibility and objectivity of the physician conducting an independent medical examination”. … In my view the Defendant is clearly entitled to the Order sought unless the Plaintiff can demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that there are sufficient grounds to justify the Court concluding that its discretion should not be exercised in favour of the appointment of the Defendant’s nominee doctor.

[10]         Here, the plaintiff, in my view, has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that there are sufficient grounds to justify that I should not exercise my discretion in favour of the order that Dr. Dost conduct the examination.

[11]         Wheeler v. White, [1983] B.C.J. No. 2494 is a case where the plaintiff objected to the psychiatrist chosen by the defendant. The master accepted the expert evidence provided by another psychiatrist that, to have a valid psychiatric examination, the plaintiff is required to open up and allow the psychiatrist into their private world. This requires great trust. Further, at para. 7 of the Wheeler decision at the chambers level:

[7]        … It is sufficient, in my opinion, for the plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension that the examination will be fraught with peril. …

[12]         The plaintiff in the present case does not, in my view, have such a reasonable apprehension. If she does have an apprehension that the examination will be fraught with peril, which is not her evidence, her apprehension is not reasonable.

[13]         It is not the law that the plaintiff gets to choose the expert to examine him or her: Sinclair (para. 15). The names of alternatives would only come into play where the plaintiff demonstrates, by a preponderance of evidence, sufficient grounds to justify the court in concluding that its discretion should not be exercised in favour of the appointment of the defendant’s nominee: Sinclair (paras. 16 and 17). Questions of fairness, partiality, credibility, and objectivity of a physician are matters for the trial judge, not the motions judge or master on an application: Sinclair (para. 21). Further, at para. 22 of Sinclair:

[22]      … In my view, for the Plaintiff to succeed, there must be evidence of real or effective inappropriate conduct on the part of the nominee doctor, and not simply the whim or idiosyncrasies of the Plaintiff or similar views of his or her Counsel. …

[14]         There is no evidence of inappropriate conduct on the part of Dr. Dost. The views of the plaintiff, in my view, do not reasonably support the opposition to Dr. Dost. For these reasons, I grant the order requiring the plaintiff to attend the examination by Dr. Dost.

Top ICBC Injury Lawyers in Vancouver

If you have an independent medical examination question or any other car accident injury question for our Top ICBC injury lawyers in Vancouver,call us now at 604-602-9000 to meet with us in Vancouver or at 1-877-602-9900 for free appointments in any of our offices in Richmond, Kelowna, Fort St John and Surrey. 



alterFantastic Law Firm! Right from the very start, I knew I had called the right people.alter