IME

http://canlii.ca/t/1gkwm

[323]       Dr. Shah’s health problems, his difficulties with the College of Psychologists and the program ‘Prove It If You Can’ all impacted his work and business. Prior to July of 1997, AssessMed kept no computer records of the number of assessments performed by Dr. Shah. From July to December of 1997, when computer records are available, Dr. Shah performed 94 assessments at AssessMed.

[324]       In 1998, he did 204 assessments. In 1999, his assessments dropped to 87. Following 1999, he performed the following number of assessments:

2000 –   132 assessments

2001 –     121 assessments

2002 –      96 assessments

[325]       Dr. Shah’s income tax returns reveal he earned the following annual income from 1997 to 2001:

1997  –                 $117,399

1998 –                    137,015

1999 –                     44,431

2000 –                       26,342

2001 –                       48,085

[326]       Dr. Shah estimated his net income for 2002 at between $40,000 and $50,000. All of his income was from assessments he performed at AssessMed. He testified the decline in his income was due to the reduction of referrals from AssessMed. Dr. Shah believes he had a potential to earn as much as $175,000 per year at AssessMed. Had his health not deteriorated, it was his plan to work until 2008.

 http://canlii.ca/t/1gw2g

[14]      The plaintiffs’ only evidence of a possible breach of the defendants’ standard of care is that of Dr. Richman dated July 26, 2001. Dr. Richman graduated in medicine in 1967 and has practiced occupational medicine and pain management. Between 1968 and 1977 he also practiced family medicine. His practice includes evaluation, management and treatment of pain in the context of occupational medicine. He is neither an obstetrician nor an anaesthetist. He has no expertise in these areas of medicine or in the treatment of pain in an obstetrical ward.

[15]      Dr. Richman’s report indicates that he did not have before him the clinical notes of the obstetrician, Dr. Livingstone, or the Hospital’s records respecting Mrs. Reid’s labour, delivery and post delivery treatment and care.

[16]      Dr. Richman’s report is stated to be an independent medical evaluation and functional abilities evaluation.

[17]      His conclusion was based on information provided to him, including statements by Mrs. Reid. He lacked two critical pieces of information, the obstetrician’s notes and the Hospital’s records. He concluded that Mrs. Reid’s complaints of injury are related to the treatment during her pregnancy and delivery. He states that “based on the information provided” that “best medical practices did not seem to be followed”.

[18]      This report is highly qualified and does not address the critical issue of whether the defendants met the standards of care applicable to their treatment of Mrs. Reid.

[19]      Furthermore, Dr. Richman did not give an affidavit confirming his opinion and whether it remains the same. Accordingly, his report was not admissible in evidence on this motion. See Ewaskiw v. Zellers 1998 CanLII 14866 (ON SC), (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 795; Beland v. Kieffer,  [2002] O.J. No. 709 paras. 5-10.

http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Oppedisano-and-Zurich-Insurance-1999-07-06-FSCO-A97%E2%80%93001443.pdf

Dr. Paul H. Grant’s Report and Qualifications:

At Zurich’s request, on October 19, 1995, a work capacity evaluation was conducted at AssessMed Inc. by Dr. Paul H. Grant, with the assistance of an Italian interpreter. [See note 16 below.] I attach very little weight to Dr. Grant’s report for the reasons outlined in the following paragraphs:

Note 16: Exhibit 2, Tab 16 (Evaluation/Report)

Although Dr. Grant has a resume which describes him as a specialist in sports and orthopaedic medicine, Mr. Oppedisano’s counsel challenged Dr. Grant’s credentials at the hearing. As a consequence, Zurich’s counsel telephoned Dr. Grant during a recess. Dr. Grantconfirmed that he is not an orthopaedic specialist and has no specialist certification. A certificate of status of registration from the College of Physicians and Surgeons lists Dr. Grant as having no specialty qualifications. In the context of individual medical assessment, this can be misleading. Dr. Grant would have self described himself more properly as a general practitioner with an interest and experience in sports medicine.

http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Mrs.-S-and-Lloyds-Non-Marine-Underwriters-2004-08-03-FSCO-2304.pdf

Lloyd’s retained Dr. Paul H. Grant, a general practitioner, to assess the Applicant. In a number of documents, including Explanations of Benefits Payable by Insurance Company, correspondence, and Lloyd’s counsel’s written submissions, Dr. Grant’s reports are referred to as orthopaedic assessments. On Dr. Grant’s reports, under his signature is “Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine” and he entitles supplementary reports as “Orthopaedic Addendum.” The Applicant’s counsel submitted, and I accept, that this is misleading since Dr. Grant is not an orthopaedic surgeon. Dr. D.J. Ogilvie-Harris, an orthopaedic surgeon, confirms this in his July 19, 2002 report. I therefore regard Dr. Grant as a general practitioner and do not accept Dr. Grant’s opinions as orthopaedic opinions.

http://canlii.ca/t/1ms0r

[20]      It is also important to closely examine the allegations made in the Statement of Claim.  The allegations of wrongdoing are extremely broad.  There are allegations of bad faith; bias; misrepresentation; carelessness; intentional interference with contractual relationships; intention to injure; inducing or attempting to induce a breach of contract; interference with performance of a contract; production of a misleading report; failure to review all relevant materials; production of a blatant falsehood; and other professional misconduct.  These allegations involve very serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the defendants.  Therefore, the plaintiff’s complaints are not simply based on the medical-legal report of Dr. Grant.  The plaintiff’s complaints, in this case, relate to the role played by both AssessMed Inc., its employees, and Dr. Grant with respect to the manner in which the medical examination was conducted, the preparation of the report, and the resulting report.

[28]      I am very mindful of the ramifications of limiting the doctrine of privilege and/or immunity with respect to medical reports and of extending the duty of care to physicians who deliver reports concerning non-patients.  However, it seems to me that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to prove that some malfeasance was in place from the very beginning.  This is the tenor of Ms. Worthman’s complaint.  As aforesaid, her complaint goes far beyond a mere allegation of negligence.  If her allegations are proven, surely it would be contrary to public policy to clothe the defendants with an absolute privilege or immunity.

Dr. Jack Richman, the fourth recipient of the “Michel Lacerte Award of Excellence” https://m360.csme.org/event.aspx?eventID=87110&instance=0

Read: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20060424530/Headline-News/Worthman-could-induce-expert-chill

page test