Where a trial judge prefers the opinion of a medical practitioner whose opinion is based on mistaken information concerning pathology and medical history over one based on accurate information, the obligation to expose the path of reasoning is stringent. A finding as to causation is not a matter into which value judgments should intrude; cogent reasons must be provided for preferring one medical opinion over another on causation. Payment by the TAC for medical procedures does not constitute an admission of causal connection.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.