Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Understanding Substituted Service Under SCCR Rule 4-4(1): What You Need to Prove
Share: November 27, 2024 | By Divyanshu In legal proceedings, personal service…
Read moreDecember 13, 2016
In the recent decision of Dippel v. Kraus, 2016 BCSC 2238, the court denied ICBC’s request for an Independent Medical Examination with a Physiatrist on the basis that the plaintiff had already been examined by an ICBC appointed Orthopaedic Surgeon. The court said:
[1] THE COURT: This is an application by the defendant for the plaintiff to attend at the defendant’s medical examination with Dr. Gabriel Hirsch, a physiatrist, on Monday next week.
[9] Dr. Richardson, as an orthopedic surgeon, is a different speciality from Dr. Hirsch, who is a physiatrist; however, it is established by case law and not disputed that there is significant overlap between these two specialties.
[13] In the absence of any evidence that Dr. Richardson would not be able to provide the evidence as to the plaintiff’s rehabilitation, or alternatively any evidence from Dr. Hirsch as to what he could bring to the analysis, or that he could opine on something that Dr. Richardson could not, I am unable to conclude that the defendant has established on the evidence that a second medical examination with Dr. Hirsch is required in these circumstances.
The full text of the decision can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2238/2016bcsc2238.html?resultIndex=1
The McQuarrie Hunter Personal Injury Blog is maintained by the ICBC and personal injury practice group at McQuarrie Hunter LLP.
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Share: November 27, 2024 | By Divyanshu In legal proceedings, personal service…
Read moreShare: October 31, 2024 McQuarrie has been recognized in the 2025 edition of…
Read moreDispute Resolution & Litigation
We are excited to welcome Rajdeep Deol to our Dispute Resolution & Litigation team here at McQuarrie. With over 30 years of invaluable legal experience, Rajdeep brings e…
Read more