No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
The expert referred to in the report is the former Chair of the professional association that regulates the medical field relevant to their doctor.
“He is the former Chair of the professional association that regulates the very field in which their doctor practices.”
The expert was not tasked to assess Mr Carrim's paper and could not do so based only on the doctor's affidavit provided.
“this expert was not asked to do an assessment on paper of Mr Carrim, nor could he have been able to do so because all that he was provided with was their doctor's affidavit”
The doctor's affidavit did not set out clinical details such as the treatment protocol, meaning the expert could not give a meaningful opinion based on it.
“their doctor, which is something that I should actually point out, because it does go to the reliability of that report, does not set out the details of things like the treatment protocol, etcetera. And I do not want to say too much more about that, but there is not that kind of detail in any event. So it would not have even been possible for our expert to give a meaningful opinion based on that affidavit”
The expert was only asked to comment on whether the objection to not having an independent medical examination is clinically appropriate, specifically focusing on objections made by the doctor about the interposition.
“So what he was asked to do instead was to comment on whether the objection, on whether it is clinically appropriate not to have an independent medical examination. That is what he was asked to comment on, and specifically to comment on the objections that were made by their doctor about the interposition or whatever the interposition is defined as.”
The expert respectfully disagrees with the objections made by the doctor about not having an independent medical examination.
“And in paragraph 7, you will see that he respectfully disagrees.”
The expert disagrees with two main points: that an independent opinion should not be obtained, and that if there were an interposition, it would cause therapeutic harm.
“The disagreement is in two respects. One is that, disagrees that an independent opinion should not be obtained. And secondly, disagrees that if there were to be an interposition, that there would be therapeutic harm.”
The expert attached his CV and is the former Chair of the professional association regulating the field in which the doctor practices. He is highly experienced and co-authored the guidelines referenced in the report.
“this expert has attached his CV. He is the former Chair of the professional association that regulates the very field in which their doctor practices. He is extremely experienced, and he is the co-author of the guidelines that he refers to in this report”
The expert was not asked to assess Mr Carrim's paper and could not do so because only the doctor's affidavit was provided, which lacked details like treatment protocols.
“this expert was not asked to do an assessment on paper of Mr Carrim, nor could he have been able to do so because all that he was provided with was their doctor's affidavit . And their doctor ... does not set out the details of things like the treatment protocol”
The expert was asked to comment only on whether an independent medical examination should have been required, particularly regarding the objections made by the doctor's affidavit about the interposition.
“what he was asked to do instead was to comment on whether the objection , on whether it is clinically appropriate not to have an independent medical examination . That is what he was asked to comment”
The expert respectfully disagrees with the objections made by the doctor's affidavit related to the interposition and the need for an independent medical examination.
“And in paragraph 7 , you will see that he respectfully disagrees”
The expert disagrees that an independent opinion should not be obtained and that if there is an interposition, there would be therapeutic harm.
“The disagreement is in two respects . One is that , disagrees that an independent opinion should not be obtained . And secondly , disagrees that if there were to be an interposition , that there would be therapeutic harm”
The expert explains that requiring the treating doctor to provide the opinion threatens the therapeutic relationship between doctor and patient.
“he says not to do so , to require the treating doctor to provide the opinion threatens that therapeutic relationship between the doctor and his patient”
No reply has been given to the expert's affidavit and the doctor's so-called expert has not challenged the affidavit besides what was heard from Mr Premhid.
“there is no reply to our expert . ... other than what we have heard from Mr Premhid , their doctor , their so-called , their expert has not challenged the affidavit”