Plaintiff said her medical condition more than two years before the car accident was not relevant
The BC Supreme Court has dismissed a defendant's application to compel the plaintiff to answer medical history questions asked at an examination for discovery beyond a two-year limit.
The dispute in Andrist v. Bryant, 2023 BCSC 490, arose from a motor vehicle accident in 2018. Ceoral Andrist allegedly sustained injuries from the accident, so she sued the defendant Catherine Bryant for damages.
Bryant filed an application requesting the BC Supreme Court to compel Andrist to answer all questions regarding her medical history without restriction to a two-year period before the motor vehicle accident. Andrist denied any pre-accident neck pain or anxiety complaints at her examination for discovery. However, Bryant pointed out that Andrist’s medical records indicate that she had these complaints before the accident. Bryant further asserted that a chiropractor had treated Andrist since at least 2013 for neck and back symptoms.
Bryant argued that the complete details of Andrist’s pre-accident medical condition are relevant to address wage loss claims adequately. Bryant said Andrist’s pre-accident medical record likely influenced her ability to work and may have made some employment unavailable to her. Bryant further argued that the scope for an examination for discovery is broad and should not be limited to a specific period.
Andrist opposed the defendant’s application, arguing that allowing the defendant to ask questions about her medical history spanning over decades was not proportional. She also said there was nothing to suggest that questions or records about her condition more than two years before the accident were relevant.
The BC Supreme Court said that, as a rule, two years before a motor vehicle accident is sufficient for the defendants to investigate properly the facts surrounding pre-existing conditions. The court noted that the broad nature of the defendant’s requested order would compel the plaintiff to answer all questions regarding her medical history without any two-year restriction. The court said it was not apparent from the materials submitted by the parties that any question regarding the plaintiff’s prior medical history beyond two years would be relevant. It was impossible for the court to determine the question’s relevance and to rule on the validity of any objections without a question being asked.
The court noted that the defendant was asking the court to pre-empt the plaintiff from objecting to any question regarding her medical history. However, the court found that the defendant’s application was overly broad and premature. The defendant must either ask the court to validate objections already made or continue with the examination for discovery and, if their questions are faced with objections, ask the court to determine the validity of these objections. As a result, the court ultimately dismissed the defendant’s application.
