In Sekihara v. Gill, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, past wage loss and loss of opportunity, diminished earning capacity, an in trust claim, loss of past and future housekeeping capacity, out of pocket expenses, and costs of future care. The Plaintiff‘s main injury was a L4/5 disc injury. ICBC’S lawyer denied liability, however the Defendant was found to be 100% responsible for the crash. One of the defence experts testified that some of the Plaintiff‘s persisting problems were not caused by the collision, but by other factors. The Court rejected these submissions, and awarded $130,000 for pain and suffering. The Court was critical of the aforementioned defence expert for many reasons, including not having an open mind.
 On behalf of the plaintiff, it is submitted that Dr. Grypma’s opinion should be given no weight for the following reasons:
1. He took what can only be described as a cursory history from Ms. Sekihara;
2. he made a number of editorial comments in the section titled “medical records review” which were not identified as being his own comments;
3. in that same section he left out salient facts which tended to support Ms. Sekihara’s complaints;
4. also in that section, if he was unable to read handwriting, he simply left those sections out of his summary without stating that he had done so; and
5. he was evasive at times in his oral testimony.
 I agree with the plaintiff’s submissions regarding Dr. Grypma. In his evidence, Dr. Grypma does not appear to have demonstrated an open mind in his examination of and conclusions regarding Ms. Sekihara or to have taken into account the complete medical history.
 Most importantly, Dr. Grypma’s opinion that the enduring complaints of back pain are related to any of the four unrelated conditions is inconsistent with the evidence of Ms. Sekihara and of the objective evidence of the tear of the annulus fibrosis.