Tag: Defence Medical Exam

Yet To Be Produced Defence Medical Report Derails Request For Second Defence Medical Exam

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on December 3, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Last week I highlighted reasons dismissing a defence application for a second independent medical exam where they had the benefit a first exam but no report was yet produced. Today similar reasons were published by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry.

In today’s case (Rong v. Yelland) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff consented to be assessed by an orthopedic surgeon of the Defendant’s choosing. After the assessment but prior to any report from the assessment being produced the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff also attend a functional capacity evaluation with a kinesiologist. The Plaintiff declined.

The Defendant brought an application to compel attendance. In dismissing this application the Court noted there is no way of knowing whether the medical ‘playing field‘ was even without the defence surgeon’s report. Master Cameron provided the following reasons:

Non Disclosed Defence Report Thwarts Request for Second Independent Medical Examination

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 22, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were recently given by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dismissing a defence request for an independent medical examination of a Plaintiff where the Plaintiff already saw an expert of the Defendants choosing but the Defendants have yet to produce a report from that expert.

In the recent case (Khan v. Cabrera) the Plaintiff was involved in a collision and sued for damages. In the course of the litigation the Plaintiff consented to be explained by a neurologist of the Defendant’s choosing and “that report has not yet been disclosed by the defence to the plaintiff“.

The Defendant requested that the Plaintiff also be assessed by an orthopaedic surgeon arguing that such an exam is necessary to provide an opinion about a pre-accident orthopaedic injury the plaintiff had sustained and also to address collision related injuries.

The Court dismissed the application in large part because it was unclear what opinion the Defendants would already have the benefit of from the first appointment. In short the litigation ‘playing field’ may already be even. In dismissing the application Master Keighley provided the following reasons: