ICBC Expert Evidence Rejected for Advocacy
Adding to this site’s archived posts highlighting judicial criticism of expert witness advocacy, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, rejecting the opinion of an ICBC retained expert in a chronic pain case.
In this week’s case (Dakin v. Roth) the Plaintiff was injured in threeÂ separateÂ collisions. Â At trial she introduced evidence from a variety of medical experts including an occupational therapist. Â ICBC retained an expert who criticised this evidence. Â The Court, however, was ultimately critical of ICBC’s rebuttal expert’s opinion finding it was not “fair, balanced or objective“. Â In rejecting the rebuttal evidence Mr. Justice Cole provided the following reasons:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â What is most disturbing about Ms.Â Taylorâ€™s report is that she describes what she says are discrepancies in Ms.Â Dakinâ€™s reports to various medical professionals at various points in time. She then lists approximately 1Â˝ pages of these discrepancies and states that it was appropriate for her to make these comments as they were relevant in assessing a clientâ€™s reliability. When questioned why she also did not highlight the consistencies within the plaintiffâ€™s reports to other medical professionals, she could not provide a rational answer. I am satisfied that the only reason she provided discrepancies in the plaintiffâ€™s reports to other medical professionals was to attack the plaintiffâ€™s credibility. Her evidence was not fair, balanced or objective, I am satisfied that Ms.Â Taylor was more of an advocate on behalf of a client. I therefore reject her evidence.