It is important to recognize the distinction between whether a cost of future care item is reasonable and medically justified as opposed to being medically necessary. The court in Brennan v. Singh, 1999 CanLII 6932 (B.C.S.C.) at paras. 80, 85-89 rejected the argument that awards for future care were to be assessed against the standard of medical necessity. Future care items must have a medical justification, and be reasonable to promote the plaintiff’s mental and physical health, taking into account the plaintiff’s preferences.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.