Jerry O’Brien

The defendants brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, and to compel the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric assessment.

The court dismissed the request for bifurcation, finding no clear advantage or cost savings, as causation touched equally on liability and damages.

The court also declined to order a psychiatric assessment, noting the plaintiff had only seen a psychologist and her psychiatric condition was not in issue.

A psychological assessment was deemed appropriate instead, and the trial was adjourned.

The defendants brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, and to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical assessments by a neurologist and a psychiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed bifurcation and the psychiatric assessment, but agreed to a neurological and psychological assessment.

The court dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding no persuasive evidence that it was in the interest of justice and noting it would likely increase costs and delay.

The court also declined to order a psychiatric assessment, finding that a psychological assessment was more appropriate given the plaintiff's treatment history and to avoid needless delay and expense.