[59] Dr. Richard Marlin was qualified at trial as an expert psychologist with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of minor brain injuries.
[60] It must be born in mind that Dr. Marlin did not meet with and examine Mr. Nagle. He did not review the neuropsychological tests data upon which Dr. Mills formed her opinion nor did he attend at the trial to listen to the testimony of Mr. Nagle, the lay witnesses nor the other medical experts. He did not engage in any psychotherapeutic sessions with Mr. Nagle.
[61] Dr. Marlin agreed that a mild traumatic brain injury was suffered by Mr. Nagle at the time of the accident. He testified “the brain was not so traumatized that it was not unable to remember what happened ”. However, he is of the view that none of the complaints which Mr. Nagle and Dr. Leckey associate with the mild traumatic brain injury have anything to do with it but are rather due to psychological factors which are treatable and stem from the other injuries sustained by Mr. Nagle. Dr. Marlin’s report is focused mainly upon refuting the diagnosis that Mr. Nagle had suffered a mild traumatic brain injury as a consequence of the accident. In his report and on direct examination, Dr. Marlin did not retract his criticisms of the medical evidence. However, on cross-examination he agreed with the diagnosis of a mild traumatic brain injury. In my opinion this diminished Dr. Marlin’s credibility as does the following testimony which is laced with sarcasm.
[69] However as noted at trial, Dr. Marlin contradicted his report and conceded that it is possible that Mr. Nagle’s current symptoms are caused by the mild traumatic brain injury suffered by Mr. Nagle as the result of the accident. For these reasons it is without hesitation that I elect to accept the evidence of Dr. Leckey and Dr. Mills over that of Dr. Marlin.