https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/244
Once again the difficulty here really is evidentiary in nature. As an arbitrator I find Dr. Robert’s report to be unhelpful in making a decision as to whether Mr. Atkinson’s treatment plan was reasonable and necessary. The doctor may have reasonably believed that the conclusion he reached was warranted, but nothing in his report helps me to understand “why” he believed that. If Bertie and Clinton chose to rely on this “less is more” form of expert report, then I conclude that they did so at their peril. There is simply no helpful reasoning contained within it for anyone looking at the circumstances from the outside. One has to note that if medical assessments ultimately come down to nothing more than “he said/she said” types of arguments, then the burden of proof presumptions in the law will ultimately be the sole warrant for determining the outcome of disputes.
Useful expert reports are those which help the ultimate decision maker, whether circumstantially, that is an insurance adjuster or an adjudicator, to understand the evidence in support of, as well as challenging, the conclusion that a claimed benefit is reasonable and necessary. Reports that only record the evidence on one side of the case are generally unhelpful; they do very little to assist the ultimate decision maker in understanding the complexity of the situation. If a dispute reaches an adjudicator, it is reasonable to assume that there are rational arguments on both sides of the case. If expert reports do not rationally help the ultimate decision maker in making her or his decision they serve no useful purpose. Given the high cost associated with generating many of these reports they should address the situation in a helpful, rather than a partisan way.