A trial judge cannot reject expert medical evidence that a plaintiff is fabricating injuries based solely on the judge's demeanour-based assessment that the plaintiff was a truthful witness. Where medical specialists express opinions based on clinical observation and examination that a patient is pretending to have injuries, rejection of that evidence must be based on other grounds such as the unreliability of the doctor's observations, the credibility of the doctor, or non-acceptance of the expert views expressed. In personal injury cases involving conflicting medical evidence, the trial judge must make express findings on critical factual issues and engage with the significant evidence on both sides.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.