MRI Disbursement Disallowed Due To Non-Urgency

In Kumanan v. Achim, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and subsequently brought an ICBC claim for damages arising therein. At one point during the litigation, the Plaintiff obtained a private MRI, as opposed to waiting for one through the public medical system. An issue arose as to whether or not the disbursement should be paid by ICBC, who argued that the non-urgent nature of the MRI meant it should not have to be paid. ICBC’S lawyer conceded that it was a necessary and proper examination, but that it was not reasonable to incur this cost due to the non-urgent nature, and that there was no evidence offered to justify bypassing the publicly funded health care system. The Court agreed, and disallowed the disbursement. In referring to the Repnicki case, the Court stated :

[10] This matter bears some significant similarities. In this case, there was no trial date pending when the MRI examination was requested by the two physicians. Rather, a notice of trial was not filed until August 2012 reserving a trial date for March 2013. As matters transpired, this case settled in February of 2013.

[11] I was not provided with any evidence as to what the wait time may have been to have the MRI examination done in the public health care system. It is also noteworthy that while the recommendation for the MRI examination was made in mid July 2011 it was not acted upon until after some other x-rays were done in October 2011 and only after that, on November 2nd, 2011, was the MRI examination done.

[12] I am left to wonder whether that if a place had been reserved in the public health care system in July 2011, the Plaintiff might not have had the MRI examination done if not by November of 2011, not too much longer thereafter.

[13] Accordingly, I am not satisfied that it was reasonable to incur this expense when it was incurred and it is disallowed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *