Insurance defence lawyers love to hire expert witnesses who are prepared to testify about everything.  Orthopedic surgeons who claim expertise in psychiatry.  Psychiatrists who claim expertise in metallurgy or ballistics.  Or, in the case of Dr. Ryan Janicki, a neurosurgeon who claimed expertise in the work demands of being an Engineering Technologist, and of participating in contact sports.

In the recent case of MacKinnon v. Swanson: https://canlii.ca/t/jsgn2, Dr. Janicki claimed that Mr. MacKinnon could return to work, to sports, and physical labour; there was no reason – according to Dr. Janicki – to impose any medical restrictions on Mr. MacKinnon.  If he had been believed, Mr. MacKinnon would have received close to nothing for his severe injuries.

Trial judge Mr. Justice Nigel Kent showed how little time he has for such hired experts.

[59]       Regretfully, I am unable to ascribe much, if any, weight to Dr. Janicki’s opinion. On its face, it is inaccurate and potentially misleading. I do not necessarily say that this was deliberately so but I can well understand why Plaintiff’s counsel gained that impression.

Justice Kent went on to refer to experts who give opinions outside their expertise: Expert witnesses who provide opinions in such stark terms without explicitly stating the limitations of their opinion may, if their opinions contrast with complaints of pain and suffering that are found to be genuine, and are at odds with contrary opinion evidence from another medical expert, risk creating confusion.

Dr. Janicki should know better.  He’s provided expert opinions for court and the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal at least a dozen other times.  He should know that his expertise is limited to neurosurgery.  Period.

Having rejected Dr. Janicki’s evidence, Justice Kent awarded Mr. MacKinnon $1.5 million in damages. 

Kudos to lawyer Josh Woods of Coquitlam law firm Clark Woods: www.clarkwoods.ca  for what Justice Kent described as a “withering cross-examination” which forced Dr. J to admit that his whole opinion was “actually limited to neurosurgical pathology”, that Mr. MacKinnon does have chronic pain, and that chronic pain can cause psychiatric issues.  None of those statements were in Dr. Janicki’s formal report, nor did he say so until the “withering” cross by Josh Woods.

At Clear Legal, we have been holding inaccurate and misleading experts to account since 1990, in cases in the Yukon, BC, and Alberta.  We teach other lawyers how to do so.  If you are looking for a great lawyer in Coquitlam for your injury case, call Josh at Clark Woods.  Otherwise, call us.