Dr. Terrance Andrew O’Farrell
Cases are won by evidence. The Plaintiff says he was hurt, the defence says he wasn’t. Often, the defence hires an expert to examine the Plaintiff. Usually the defence experts says the Plaintiff wasn’t hurt. The Defence report may say: “I examined Mr. Plaintiff and saw that he was not injured.” It might say: “I examined Mr. Plaintiff and saw no sign of injury”.
But: the defence expert is expected to LOOK.
Sometimes a Defence expert gets caught not looking. Such a defence expert is Dr. Terrance Andrew O’Farrell, from Kelowna. He got his M.D. in 1971. Apparently he never learned the rule: “When you examine a patient, the first thing you should look at is THE PATIENT”.
In the recent case of Chenier v. Szili the Plaintiff was rear-ended on the Port Mann Bridge. He said he was injured in his upper & lower back, his neck, his shoulders, and had tingling in his right leg and right arm. This tingling was an important sign because it could mean nerve damage.
ICBC sent him for an examination by an orthopedist. Dr. Terrance O’Farrell graduated from medical school in 1971 – 44 years ago. He retired from medical practice some time ago, but still does defence work. He has not done any spine surgeries since 2005, according to Dr. O’Farrell: “to allow room for younger, more skilled people” to do so.
Dr. O’Farrell was faced with a Plaintiff asserting injuries to the back, neck, shoulders, right arm, and right leg. Mr. Justice Armstrong determined:
[155] Dr. O’Farrell paid no regard to the plaintiff’s upper back injury and resulting symptoms. He recorded no complaints from the plaintiff regarding his upper back sensations of numbness and tingling in his right and left arms. He recalled that the plaintiff’s left arm improved but there were residual symptoms in his right arm.
[156] Dr. O’Farrell did not recall performing an upper extremity examination of the plaintiff. He said it was possible he had not examined the plaintiff in that region.
His report had many errors and facts left out. He claimed to have done various examinations – but had made no notes.
Mr. Justice Armstrong concluded:
[160] … Dr. O’Farrell’s investigation of the plaintiff, his clinical notes taken during his examination of the plaintiff and the differences between his notes and underlying facts in the report were flawed. Most significantly, he did not do an upper body examination of Mr. Chenier and did not observe other symptoms that confirmed a spinal cord compression.
….
[163] … Dr. O’Farrell’s opinions regarding the plaintiff’s low back injury and his upper spine injuries and their connection to his pre-existing degenerative disc condition are not persuasive….
Mr. Chernier was represented by excellent plaintiff personal injury lawyers Jordan Skands and Alethea Capadouca.
It’s not the first time Dr. O’Farrell had a rough ride at trial. In Hay v. Benzer, 2014 BCSC 1522 , Mr. Justice Cole said:
[13] At the request of ICBC [the Plaintiff Ms. Hay] saw Dr. O’Farrell on July 28, 2009. He is an orthopaedic surgeon. He does a significant amount of work for ICBC and appeared to me to be more of an advocate than an independent professional. … He had documents only from a physiotherapist dated June 16, 2009. … Dr. O’Farrell did not produce any notes of his assessment claiming they were most likely in another file. I give Dr. O’Farrell’s evidence very little weight.
No kidding.