This submission is somewhat of an overgeneralization based on the conclusion expressed in the Redford reasons. As I read the whole of that decision, it appears to me that the judge engaged in the same review of the evidence as I have done here before finding that the plaintiff satisfied the conditions precedent to claim under s. 88(1). In Prato v. I.C.B.C., 2002 BCSC 676, the court, at para. 39, held that Redford is authority for the proposition that once the claimant obtains a medical opinion that recommends treatment for the injuries suffered as a result of the accident, he or she is entitled to have the treatment covered and would only become disentitled if ICBC obtains a contrary medical opinion.
"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.