Dr. Martin Peter Grypma was featured in our blog in January 2015.  Judges rejected his defence opinions, finding him not to have an open mind, to be superficial, and gave his opinions no weight.  One would think that if ICBC wanted to persuade judges, they would stop hiring Dr. Grypma.  But no.  He continues to be a high flier.  His billings directly to ICBC in 2014 were $300,495, and in 2015 were “only” $171,620.  However, he also bills through various third-party “expert” companies, including Medisys, CIRA Medical Services, and IMA Solutions Inc.  Payments he receives through these companies don’t show up on the ICBC financial statements.

His treatment by judges continues the same pattern:

Wagner v. Newbery, 2015 BCSC 894 (Mr. Justice Blok):

[192]     I was left with the impression that Dr. Grypma’s approach was unduly narrow. Dr. Grypma himself noted that that paramedics who attended at the second car accident noted low back pain, so it is not clear why he discounted that. …

[193]     In addition, while it may be that many accident victims see their soft-tissue symptoms abate in a few months, the courts are filled with plaintiffs whose (legitimate) soft-tissue complaints carry on long after that.  I felt that Dr. Grypma did not adequately account for that well-known phenomenon in considering Ms. Wagner’s case.

Litt v. Hassan, 2015 BCSC 1920 (Mr. Justice Weatherill):

[88]         These comments are either outside the scope of Dr. Grypma’s expertise, are an attempt to attack the plaintiff’s credibility or are in the nature of argument.  They are not helpful and have no place in the report of a medical expert who has certified that he is aware that his duty is to assist the court and not be an advocate for any party.

[89]         I found Dr. Grypma to be an advocate rather than an impartial, objective expert.

Kim v. Lin, 2016 BCSC 2405 (Mr. Justice Sewell):

[118] …after reviewing his opinions in the context of the whole of the evidence and observing him under cross-examination, I have concluded that he failed to present balanced and impartial evidence in this case.

[123]     In cross-examination, Dr. Grypma said that this reference might be ambiguous. If he thought it was ambiguous, I find it odd that he referred to it in both of his reports and in his second report used the phrase “doing really well” three times in two pages. I do not see any ambiguity in the note. I find that Dr. Grypma was being disingenuous when he suggested that Dr. Budzianowska-Kwiatkowski’s report was ambiguous and that he was being either deliberately misleading or grossly careless in his reports when he used this passage to suggest that Ms. Kim had recovered from her injuries by October 2008.

[124]     This reference is consistent with the tenor of Dr. Grypma’s opinions, which I found to be adversarial in tone and content.

[127]     For all of the foregoing reasons, I can give no weight to Dr. Grypma’s opinions.

Was he “deliberately misleading” or just “grossly careless?  We may never know.  Why does he continue to right reports which expose his to such comments? It must be expensive to maintain a private aircraft.

Why does ICBC keep hiring him?  We may never know — but we can guess