Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, criticizing the volume of applications the Court is seeing with Defendants arguing that they need to subject plaintiff’s to physical examinations in order to obtain ‘responsive’ expert opinion evidence. In today’s case (Falbo v. Ryan) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, Uncategorized.
Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, criticizing and restricting the practice of allowing late defense medical examinations in the guise of obtaining ‘responsive’ reports. In last week’s case (Timar v. Barson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2011 collision and sued for damages. The alleged injuries included […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, Uncategorized.
Reasons for judgement were published recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing responsive expert reports and the discretion of the Court to adjourn a trial to permit late expert evidence to be introduced. In the recent case (Lennox v. Karim) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 collision. 87 days prior to […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.
(Image via wikipedia) One rule that has perhaps received more attention than other in recent years is Rule 11-6(4) in the context of Responsive Medical Exams. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, further addressing this topic and coining the “shoehorn” prohibition to responsive independent medical exams. In […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.
Helpful reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dismissing a defence application to have a Plaintiff assessed by a neurosurgeon. In short the Court found the application was brought too late in the claim and that there was insufficient evidence to justify a physical exam for a truly […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams.
One of the New Rules which has received more attention than most is Rule 11-6(4) which deals with responsive reports. The issue of whether the Court could order a Plaintiff to undergo a physical exam for a responsive report has been considered a good half dozen times. In short the authorities have held that such […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.
When the New Rules of Court were introduced last year changes were made to the timelines to exchange expert reports. An 84 day deadline was set out in Rule 11-6(3) and a shorter 42 day deadline is set out in Rule 11-6(4) for “responding reports“. The first reasons for judgement that I’m aware of were […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.
Rule 11-6(3) of the new BC Supreme Court Civil Rules requires expert reports to be served 84 days prior to trial. Rule 11-6(4) requires “responding” reports to be served at least 42 days prior to trial. The issue of whether a Defendant is able to force a plaintiff to attend an “independent medical exam” for […]
Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, BCSC Civil Rule 7, independent medical exams, Uncategorized.
Important reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, interpreting and applying Rule 11-6(4) for the first time. This rule deals with “responsive” expert opinion evidence. Under the old Rules of Court parties could call responsive expert evidence without notice provided the evidence was truly responsive. The new rules of court […]
Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized.
Currently the law relating to the disclosure of expert opinion evidence is governed by Rule 40A of the BC Supreme Court Rules. (click here to read my previous posts about the upcoming changes to the Rules of Expert Opinion Evidence). If a party wishes to introduce expert opinion evidence at trial Rule 40A requires […]