Skip to content

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie

An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation.

Where a physician is engaged to conduct an in-person IME, the physician owes the claimant/patient a duty of care.

But what if the physician is asked only to conduct a review of the claimant’s medical records, without ever seeing the claimant or assessing his or her condition in person?

A recent decision from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal confirms that paper-only IMEs will attract the same duty and standard expected in an in-person setting.1

This decision is important for insurers and particularly doctors who undertake both in-person and paper-only IMEs.

Background

Dr. Rubens, a psychiatrist, was engaged by Mr. Sansome’s insurer to conduct an IME of Mr. Sansome to assist in evaluating Mr. Sansome’s claim for disability benefits. Mr. Sansome declined to travel out of the province, so the insurer asked Dr. Rubens to conduct a paper-only review of Mr. Sansome’s medical records.

Mr. Sansome’s records disclosed that he had previously been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, that he was obese, and that he had Type II diabetes.

Dr. Rubens, in his report, stated that Mr. Sansome’s liver function was consistent with the profile of an alcoholic. Dr. Rubens had a “high level of suspicion” that alcohol abuse was a contributing factor to Mr. Sansome’s condition. After reviewing Dr. Rubens’ report, the insurer denied Mr. Sansome’s disability benefits claim.

Mr. Sansome sued Dr. Rubens and alleged unfairness, lack of consent to review, malicious handling of medical records, misdiagnosis, and defamation.

Dr. Rubens applied for summary trial dismissing Mr. Sansome’s claim. Dr. Rubens stated that he had consent to report on the medical records and that the defamation claim could not succeed because the report was protected by qualified privilege.

Before the Application Judge, Dr. Rubens acknowledged that he owed a duty of care to Mr. Sansome, but maintained that he had not been negligent in preparing his IME report.

Mr. Sansome’s family physician testified that he had been his doctor for 25 years and that Mr. Sansome had never displayed substance abuse problems during that time.

The Application Judge agreed with Dr. Rubens on the issue of consent to review and the issue of defamation.

However, the Application Judge found that Dr. Rubens was negligent in preparing the IME report.

The Application Judge held that Dr. Rubens:

  • “had a duty to review and opine on Mr. Sansome’s medical record in accordance with accepted and current medical knowledge”; and
  • “ought to have realized that his diagnosis of alcohol ingestion being responsible for [the condition] was questionable in light of information in Mr. Sansome’s records and from his treating specialists.”2

Dr. Rubens appealed the negligence findings. He also claimed that he had mistakenly acknowledged that he owed a duty of care to Mr. Sansome.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the finding of negligence against Dr. Rubens.

Was negligence pleaded?

The Court of Appeal noted that Mr. Sansome did not explicitly allege negligence in his pleading. In fact he did not, at any point, state that Dr. Rubens was negligent or even use the word negligence in his claim. In his Amended Defence, Dr. Rubens did state that his report “constitute[d] reasonable conclusions based on current psychiatric knowledge” and that he acted “with the standard of care, skill and attention required of a physician.”3

The Court held that a cause of action need not be specifically named in the pleading, but that there must be material facts to constitute the cause of action in the pleading.

Justice Hoegg stated that Dr. Rubens’ defence demonstrated that he identified negligence as an issue from Mr. Sansome’s Statement of Claim. Together with the evidence and submissions of both parties, that was sufficient to justify the Application Judge’s conclusion that negligence was alleged.

The proper interpretation of summary trial under Rule 17A

The Court then turned to the issue of whether or not the Application Judge could make a finding of negligence while also finding “no genuine issue for trial.”

Summary trial under Rule 17A is generally permissible in two circumstances:

  1. (Rule 17A.03(1)) where there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence; or
  2. (Rule 17A.03(2)) where the court decides that there is a genuine issue with respect to a claim or defence, unless
    a. the judge is unable to find the facts necessary to decide the questions of fact or law; or
    b. it would be unjust to decide the issues on the application.

The Application Judge held that “there is no issue for trial and it would not be unjust to decide the issue summarily.”4 Effectively, the Application Judge had combined the two inconsistent grounds for summary trial.

The Court of Appeal found that statement to mean that on the basis of the evidence, the Application Judge could make the necessary findings of fact and law to decide the negligence issue “fairly and justly” without a trial.

The Court effectively read into the Application Judge’s judgment that the phrase “no issue for trial” was not in reference to Rule 17A.03(1).

Rather, the Application Judge meant he could decide the case in line with Rule 17A.03(2).

Was Dr. Rubens’ negligence proved?

The Court went on to define negligence generally (i.e. a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and injury to the claimant).

From there, Justice Hoegg delved deeper into the issue of a paper-only IME and what principles apply to a relationship between doctor and patient in such circumstances.

Justice Hoegg held that even though Dr. Rubens and Mr. Sansome had never met, there was still a relationship between them. Dr. Rubens took the responsibility for producing a report, and that report was used to review Mr. Sansome’s claim. According to Justice Hoegg “Dr. Rubens actions had the potential to so closely and directly affect Mr. Sansome and his personal interests that Mr. Sansome could well suffer injury or loss if the doctor’s reviewing and reporting actions were negligently carried out.”5

Justice Hoegg concluded that the relationship between Dr. Rubens and Mr. Sansome was “sufficiently proximate to give rise to a duty of care” and that there were no relevant policy considerations to negate that duty.6

Justice Hoegg rejected the notion that recognizing a cause of action in negligence against a doctor conducting a paper-only IME will interfere with other principles of law. Justice Hoegg held that it was not inconsistent for the negligence claim to succeed while the defamation and breach of confidence claims failed.

In stating the applicable standard of care, Justice Hoegg held that a doctor’s opinion must be prudently and diligently formed on the basis of the degree of knowledge, competence, and skill of professionals in the field.7

Justice Hoegg held that the Application Judge’s determination that Dr. Rubens was negligent was essentially a finding that Dr. Rubens had breached the standard of care.

Justice Hoegg further stated that Dr. Rubens’ conclusion that alcohol abuse was the cause of Mr. Sansome’s condition was inconsistent with generally accepted medical knowledge regarding his symptoms.

In respect of damages caused by Dr. Rubens to Mr. Sansome, Justice Hoegg held that Mr. Sansome failed to tender any evidence of injury or loss as a result of Dr. Rubens’ actions. Mere injury to sensibilities, in the eyes of the Court, was not enough to justify a finding of negligence.8

Therefore, Justice Hoegg held that the finding of negligence could not stand despite the finding that Dr. Rubens had breached the standard of care.9

The Court of Appeal remitted the issue back to the lower court for trial on the basis that two of the elements of negligence had been established but the third (causation and damage) had not.

In concurring reasons, Chief Justice Green agreed with Justice Hoegg, but held that it was inappropriate to consider policy exceptions to the duty of care absent pleadings from the parties on that issue.10

Impact

The Court of Appeal’s decision is an important warning to physicians conducting paper-only IMEs.

Such paper-based reviews will still attract a duty of care to the patient. Justice Hoegg reinforced that the doctor-patient relationship gives rise to a duty of care when the doctor’s actions have the “potential” to affect the patient’s interests. Paper-only IMEs conducted for the purpose of evaluating insurance claims will inherently affect the interests of the claimant patient.

Insurers and consulting physicians will undoubtedly have to consider the potential liabilities associated with paper-based IMEs in light of this decision.


1 2017 NLCA 32 (“Rubens“)
2Rubens, para 11.
3Rubens, para 19.
4Rubens, para 28.
5Rubens, para 57.
6Rubens, para 66.
7Rubens, para 80.
8Rubens, para 95.
9Rubens, paras 94 – 96.
10Rubens, paras 101 – 110.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages

April 14, 2016

In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is…

Read More

Client Update: Interest arbitration changes for New Brunswick postponed for further study

April 11, 2016

On Friday, the Province of New Brunswick announced that it would not proceed at this time with the recently proposed changes to binding interest arbitration. The Province announced that a joint labour management committee will be struck to examine…

Read More

Client Update: Universal interest arbitration proposed for New Brunswick

April 5, 2016

On March 29, 2016, the Province of New Brunswick tabled proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act and the Public Services Labour Relations Act. If passed, these changes would dramatically alter well-established principles of private sector collective bargaining.…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top