[20] It is also important to closely examine the allegations made in the Statement of Claim. The allegations of wrongdoing are extremely broad. There are allegations of bad faith; bias; misrepresentation; carelessness; intentional interference with contractual relationships; intention to injure; inducing or attempting to induce a breach of contract; interference with performance of a contract; production of a misleading report; failure to review all relevant materials; production of a blatant falsehood; and other professional misconduct. These allegations involve very serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff’s complaints are not simply based on the medical-legal report of Dr. Grant. The plaintiff’s complaints, in this case, relate to the role played by both AssessMed Inc., its employees, and Dr. Grant with respect to the manner in which the medical examination was conducted, the preparation of the report, and the resulting report.
[28] I am very mindful of the ramifications of limiting the doctrine of privilege and/or immunity with respect to medical reports and of extending the duty of care to physicians who deliver reports concerning non-patients. However, it seems to me that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to prove that some malfeasance was in place from the very beginning. This is the tenor of Ms. Worthman’s complaint. As aforesaid, her complaint goes far beyond a mere allegation of negligence. If her allegations are proven, surely it would be contrary to public policy to clothe the defendants with an absolute privilege or immunity.
Dr. Jack Richman, the fourth recipient of the “Michel Lacerte Award of Excellence” https://m360.csme.org/event.aspx?eventID=87110&instance=0
Read: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20060424530/Headline-News/Worthman-could-induce-expert-chill