Goodman Law is pleased to announce our recent success in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in which we defended our client’s interests by preventing a medical assessment (IME) by a neurologist chosen by ICBC.
IMEs are often obtained by both the claimant and ICBC during the litigation process, the purpose of which is to have independent doctors provide the parties, and ultimately the Court, with an impartial expert opinion on the claimant’s injuries. The law is clear with regards to IMEs; the Plaintiff must attend these appointments so long as they are reasonable and fair.
In this recent case, our client was in two motor vehicle accidents where she suffered a number of injuries including a concussion, traumatic brain injury, and a number of soft tissue injuries.
Over the course of the claim, our client consented to two IMEs selected by ICBC; one with a psychiatrist and one with an orthopaedic surgeon. Interestingly, we had yet to receive copies of the reports from the first two assessments, yet ICBC asked for yet another one, this time with a neurologist. When we drew the line at two assessments, ICBC applied for a court order to compel our client to attend.
We argued that the third IME was unnecessary and would put the parties on an unequal playing field. We further argued that ICBC had yet to produce reports from their two previous IMEs, and was in essence ‘doctor shopping’ for a favorable opinion.
Master Bouck of the Supreme Court of British Columbia agreed with our submissions and dismissed ICBC’s application with costs.Tweet