As a Vancouver personal injury lawyer, I regularly get asked whether you have to go to an appointment that ICBC sets up. The question is straightforward, the answer is not!
ICBC is entitled to some medical evidence if you are looking for some of the "no fault" benefits. A report for that purpose may or may not count towards the medical evidence that the defendant (through ICBC) is entitled to in the Tort claim.
Once a lawsuit is started, there is a big different between a first assessment and a subsequent assessment. Sometimes an injured person has to go to multiple ICBC doctors. Other times, ICBC is just trying to send a person to a different doctor to unfairly bolster their case or get a new opinion.
In Dillon v. Montgomery, 2011 BCSC 1417, the ICBC appointed lawyer for the defendant sent the injured person (the plaintiff) to an orthopaedic surgeon for an assessment. The defendant's lawyer then wanted to send the plaintiff to a neurologist.
The Plaintiff resisted saying that they provided an opinion from a neurologist confirming that the plaintiff has some neurological symptoms, but these symptoms were NOT related to the accident.
The Master (essentially a judge of interlocutory or pre-trial matters) agreed with the plaintiff. Looking at the defendants arguments, it appeared that they wanted the opinion to confirm that the symptoms were NOT related. Given the evidence of the plaintiff's expert, they would only need this assessment to confirm a negative. Doesn't make much sense does it? Well the Master didn't think so either.
Often these arguments are thinly veiled attempts at getting new opinions. Could be that ICBC didn't like the opinion they had and wanted to used this opportunity to get some new evidence.
ICBC is entitled to some medical evidence if you are looking for some of the "no fault" benefits. A report for that purpose may or may not count towards the medical evidence that the defendant (through ICBC) is entitled to in the Tort claim.
Once a lawsuit is started, there is a big different between a first assessment and a subsequent assessment. Sometimes an injured person has to go to multiple ICBC doctors. Other times, ICBC is just trying to send a person to a different doctor to unfairly bolster their case or get a new opinion.
In Dillon v. Montgomery, 2011 BCSC 1417, the ICBC appointed lawyer for the defendant sent the injured person (the plaintiff) to an orthopaedic surgeon for an assessment. The defendant's lawyer then wanted to send the plaintiff to a neurologist.
The Plaintiff resisted saying that they provided an opinion from a neurologist confirming that the plaintiff has some neurological symptoms, but these symptoms were NOT related to the accident.
The Master (essentially a judge of interlocutory or pre-trial matters) agreed with the plaintiff. Looking at the defendants arguments, it appeared that they wanted the opinion to confirm that the symptoms were NOT related. Given the evidence of the plaintiff's expert, they would only need this assessment to confirm a negative. Doesn't make much sense does it? Well the Master didn't think so either.
Often these arguments are thinly veiled attempts at getting new opinions. Could be that ICBC didn't like the opinion they had and wanted to used this opportunity to get some new evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.