In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving alleged soft tissue injuries, the defendants sought leave to conduct a second defence medical examination after previously obtaining a neurological assessment before the plaintiff produced any expert reports.
The plaintiff later served orthopaedic and physiatry reports asserting permanent impairment.
The court held that trial fairness required allowing the defence an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s medical evidence with an examination by a physiatrist.
The court concluded that the request was not merely an attempt to match specialties and that no change in circumstances or supporting medical affidavit was necessary where the defence had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence.
