Prejudice To Defendant Not Enough To Compel Plaintiff to Attend "Responding" IME

(Update November 16, 2011The case discussed in the below post has now been published and full reasons for judgement can be found here)
One of the patterns that is becoming very clear under the New Rules of Court is that Parties ignore the 84 day requirement for exchange of expert evidence at their peril.
Often times Defendants apply for an order compelling a Plaintiff to attend an Independent Medical Exam beyond this deadline.  Numerous cases have considered such applications with the argument that an assessment is necessary in order to obtain a ‘responding‘ report under the more generous 42 day deadline of Rule 11-6(4).  Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering and rejecting such an argument.
In today’s case (Scott v. Ridgway) the Plaintiff was injured and sued for damages.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff served the report of a vocational consultant.  The Defendant applied for an order to compel the Plaintiff to attend an independent exam in order to obtain a responding report.   The Defendant brought the application after the 84 day deadline.  Madam Justice Kloegman dismissed the application finding that prejudice is not enough to compel an IME for the purpose of a responding report.  The Court provided the following useful reasons:
[6]  I am not persuaded that the plaintiff is required to attend before Dr. Banks in order for the defendant to file a responsive report.  I am aware of the prejudice claimed by the defendant that their expert’s opinion may be given less weight because of lack of examination of the plaintiff.  However, if they are prejudiced, it is of their making and not the result of any conduct of the plaintiff.
[7]  The rules are clear.  They must be obeyed in the absence of special circumstances.  There are no special circumstances here that would allow the defendant to file a report containing fresh opinion.  The defendant will be restricted to analyzing and respond to the plaintiff’s report.
I should note that some previous cases have ordered physical examination for responding report purposes, however, in such cases the Court was presented with affidavit evidence from the proposed expert explaining why such an examination is necessary.
In today’s case the Defendant did provide an affidavit from a doctor but the court placed no weight in it and criticized it for being “lifted from another affidavit sworn by another expert in another case with other expertise than that of Dr. Cook”.
Today’s reasons are unpublished but as always I’m happy to share a copy with anyone who contacts me and requests these.

bc injury law, independent medical exams, Madam Justice Kloegman, responding reports, Rule 11, Rule 11-6, Rule 11-6(4), Rule 7, Rule 7-6, Rule 7-6(1), Scott v. Ridgway

Comments (13)

  • I simply want to tell you that I am just newbie to blogging and really savored your blog. Most likely I’m want to bookmark your blog . You really have beneficial well written articles. Many thanks for revealing your blog.

  • Good – I should certainly pronounce, impressed with your website. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related info ended up being truly simple to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it at all. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, web site theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Nice task..

  • Thank you a lot for giving everyone an exceptionally marvellous opportunity to read articles and blog posts from here. It really is so brilliant and stuffed with a lot of fun for me and my office acquaintances to visit your website the equivalent of three times in a week to read through the fresh guidance you have. And of course, we are usually fascinated with your astounding secrets you serve. Certain 4 points in this post are easily the very best we have all had.

  • I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or blog posts in this kind of space . Exploring in Yahoo I at last stumbled upon this website. Studying this info So i am happy to exhibit that I’ve an incredibly good uncanny feeling I discovered exactly what I needed. I such a lot undoubtedly will make sure to don¡¦t forget this website and provides it a look regularly.

  • Hi, i believe that i saw you visited my weblog so i got here to “go back the choose”.I am attempting to find issues to improve my website!I assume its adequate to use a few of your ideas!!

  • I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to construct my own blog and would like to know where u got this from. thanks a lot

  • My programmer is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the costs. But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using WordPress on a variety of websites for about a year and am nervous about switching to another platform. I have heard great things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can transfer all my wordpress content into it? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  • Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very useful information particularly the last part 🙂 I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Contact

If you would like further information or require assistance, please get in touch.

ERIK
MAGRAKEN

Personal Injury Lawyer

When not writing the BC Injury Law Blog, Erik is the managing partner at MacIsaac & Company, based in Victoria, B.C. He is also involved with combative sports regulatory issues and authors the Combat Sports Law Blog.

“Work hard, be kind and enjoy the ride!”
Erik’s Philosophy

Disclaimer