IME Providers Adverse Comments

‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’

DUTY OF EXPERT

Rules of Civil Procedure 4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,

(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and

(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.

Duty Prevails

(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged.

*******************************************

FAIR Policy question regarding evidence used at FSCO DRS hearings

FAIR response from FSCO JR Richards

If you have a Superior Court or Arbitration Decision that contains an adverse comment about one of Ontario’s IME providers you can send it to us for inclusion on our website at fairautoinsurance@gmail.com

You can check out some of the cases by searching an assessors name on the Canadian Legal Information Institute web page where court decisions are published at: http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has a Arbitration and Appeal Decisions section with decisions in respect to auto accident claims that include the names of physicians, assessors and assessment centers at: http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/drs/Pages/arbitration_appeal_decisions.aspx You will have to call (416) 590-7202 or 1-800-517-2332 ext. 7202 to register for a password to get access to the FSCO decisions. Please let us know is you encounter any issues getting a password.

“Clearly one hopes that a medical expert will not only be qualified to conduct a competent assessment but will also be independent and unbiased in formulating his/her opinion. But what if he or she is not?” (Bakalenikov v. Semkiw, 2010 ONSC 4928 (CanLII) — 2010-09-15)

“The value of these independent assessments is directly proportionate to the independence and quality that courts and arbitrators attach to them.” [Rocco Guerriero B.Sc., DC, FRCCSS(C), FCCPOR(C), FCCO(C)] Canadian Underwriter Dec 20, 2012 Letter to the Editor: Independent medical examinations provide “necessary check and balance”

Expert Witnesses looking back | thinking forward http://www.hamiltonmedicallegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Experts.pdf

Our Adverse comment page is not an exhaustive list or search of adverse comments. These are just examples of the comments of Judges and Arbitrators, the triers-of-fact, who decide the quality of the experts and their evidence. Surely we can trust in their words.

We highly recommend you access the legal decisions on Canlii and read the entire decision to understand the context of the adverse comments

Ameis, Arthur – Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Bail, Monte – Psychiatrist

Cameron, Hugh Urquhart – Orthopedic Surgeon

Cashman, Frank, Emil – Psychiatrist

Clark, Benjamin- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Conn Garson, Orthopaedic Surgeon

Debow, Stanley Lawrence, Psychiatrist

Dost, Rehan – Neurologist

Fielden Robert – Orthopedic Surgery

Ford, Michael – Orthopaedic Surgeon addendum: Dr Ford re bias Ruling on Voir Dire 1700072138

Gnam William, Psychiatrist