In the latest case (Preston v. Kontzamanis) of courts having critical comments for medico-legal practices, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Quesnel Registry, rejecting the opinion of a defence retained doctor who “did not meet with, examine or interview” the Plaintiff but nonetheless authored a report opining on the Plaintiff’s injuries.
In criticizing this practice Mr. Justice Parrett provided the following comments:
 The defendant provided and relied upon what purported to be an independent medical report (IME) by Dr. Boyle.
 Dr. Boyle readily acknowledged that he was not asked to and did not meet with, examine or interview the plaintiff.
 Dr. Boyle reviewed documents and information provided by counsel and wrote his report.
 These documents and that information included clinical records of various medical professionals.
 This is a process that is unlikely to assist the court in any material way. The first concession is invariably, and was in this case, that interviewing, examining and getting a personal history is important to providing an accurate and complete assessment.
 This is a trend that appears to have been of relatively recent origin.
 It is also a trend which has drawn adverse comment from judges of this court. Dhaliwal v. Bassi 2007 B.C.S.C. 549 (Burnyeat, J. at paras. 2-3); Ruscheinski v. Biln 2011 B.C.S.C. 1263 (Walker, J. at paras. 85-87);Rizotti v. Doe 2012 B.C.S.C. 1330 (Tindale, J. at para. 35).
 To these I would add my own comments. Where an expert chooses to prepare a report as he did here, expecting this court to accept and rely on it. He is presenting a report in which he effectively asserts that he accepts as true and accurate the factual base on which his opinions are based.
 Where he does so without seeing, examining or taking a personal history he chooses to offer his opinion on the basis of hearsay. Worse still he chooses to offer it on the basis of his interpretation of hearsay recorded by others.
 Another difficulty presents itself with respect to the report and evidence of Dr. Boyle and the report of Dr. Hawk.
 The clinical records and other documents were admitted under the terms of a document agreement which was entered as Exhibit #1.
 Under the terms of that agreement the use of documents in general, which includes clinical records, is limited. Paragraph 2 and 5 of that document are particularly notable.
 In my view, Dr. Boyle’s report should be afforded the weight it deserves and in this case where credibility and exaggeration are both asserted against the plaintiff by the defendant that is no weight at all.
 It was not argued in this case that the report was inadmissible and Dr. Boyle’s qualifications to give an expert opinion on this case and in these circumstances was not addressed. I leave it then to another day and for full argument for this court to consider whether the requirements are met to allow the report to be received at all in these circumstances.