13 Jan Court Rejects Defense Medical Opinion of Dr. Grypma
In Litt v. Hassan, 2015 BCSC 1920, ICBC relied on a medical-legal report prepared by Dr. Grypma. His report stated that the Plaintiff did not suffer any injuries from the two motor vehicle collisions he was involved in.
The Court rejected Dr. Grypma’s report for the following reasons:
- Grypma’s “unyielding and previously judicially rejected view that a muscle is not injured if pain is not immediate” (para. 84);
- Grypma’s examination was not objective;
- Grypma’s analysis of the Plaintiff’s medical records and history was argumentative;
- Grypma relied on an incorrect factual assumption regarding seatbelt use; and
- Grypma made various comments that were outside his area of expertise or attacked the Plaintiff’s credibility.
The Court stated that Dr. Grypma’s comments were unhelpful and “have no place in the report of a medical expert who has certified that he is aware that his duty is to assist the court and not be an advocate for any party” [para. 88].
The Court concluded that Dr. Grypma was “an advocate rather than an impartial, objective expert” (para. 89).
After rejecting the Defence’s medical evidence, the Court accepted the Plaintiff’s medical experts’ opinions and awarded the Plaintiff the following amounts:
|a) Non-Pecuniary Damages:||$60,000|
|b) Past Wage Loss/Loss of Earning Capacity:||$130,000|
|c) Future Loss of Income and Earning Capacity:||$75,000|
|d) Past and Future Loss of Housekeeping Capacity:||$0|
|e) Cost of Future Care:||$3,500|
|f) Special Damages:||$8,673.71|