26 Feb Redmond v. Krider

In Redmond v. Krider, 2015 BCSC 178, the evidence of Dr. Alexander Levin, a psychiatric expert testifying for ICBC, was given very little weight by the Court.  In considering the admissibility of Dr. Levin’s report, the judge noted:


[116]     Dr. Levin was also cross-examined on the amount of income he received in 2013 from ICBC, and from the Medical Services Plan. Suffice it to say that 91% of his income for 2013 was derived from ICBC reports.  In 2012, it was 87%, in 2011, 78% and in 2010, the year of the accident, 60%. 


Although the Court allowed Dr. Levin’s report into evidence, it did not rely on it, for a variety of reasons:


–          The Court felt that it was difficult to ignore the percentage of yearly income Dr. Levin earned from ICBC.


–          The Court found that Dr. Levin’s report was not objective.


–          While testifying, Dr. Levin was argumentative with Ms. Redmond’s counsel and did not clearly answer simple questions asked of him.


–          Although Dr. Levin was not a physical medicine doctor, he commented on Ms. Redmond’s pain and limitations.


–          Lastly, the Court found it difficult to accept Dr. Levin’s evidence because he said that if the DSM-5 criteria were applied as a checklist, everyone in the courtroom would have a number of psychiatric diagnoses.  The judge did not accept that evidence.


The Court preferred the evidence of Ms. Redmond’s psychiatric expert, Dr. Stephen Anderson.  The Court found that Ms. Redmond had established that she sustained the pain disorder as a psychiatric condition.  After assessing damages, the Court awarded her $548,411.96.


%d bloggers like this: