The defendant in a medical malpractice trial brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary record after the close of evidence but before judgment, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent amendments to the Assistive Devices Program (ADP).
The defendant argued the new ADP policies would make the plaintiff's orthotic device eligible for funding, thereby reducing the future care costs claim.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's device remained ineligible under the revised ADP criteria because it was not manufactured in-house from raw materials.
The court further held that even if the evidence could change the result, reopening the trial after ten years of litigation would not be in the interests of justice due to significant delay, costs, and procedural complexity.
