WONG MEI WAH v. I CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD

DCEC548/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 548 OF 2010

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

R U L I N G

________________________

1.  The applicant’s solicitors wish to seek leave to produce the physiotherapy report prepared by Mr Tsang, dated 14 April 2011 and have it attached to the joint medical experts’ report prepared by Dr Chang and Dr Ko.

2.  The joint medical expert’s report, according to the Order of Her Honour Judge Chan, dated 24 March 2011 was to be filed on or before 28 June 2011.  Today is the 20 July 2011 and that joint orthopaedic report is well out of time. 

3.  The history of this application is this.  The applicant’s solicitors received the report from the physiotherapist which was dated 14 April, towards the end of April 2011 and, in the meantime there was a joint examination between the orthopaedic experts of the parties on 3 May and after this examination the two experts should prepare a joint report.  It was only on 18 July 2011 that the applicant’s solicitors wrote to their expert, Dr Chang and asked him, whether in his view, it was preferable for the purposes of compiling a comprehensive report to let the two experts have sight of the physiotherapy report.  This letter was obviously two and a half months after the physiotherapist’s report was in the possession of the applicant’s lawyers.

4.  In reply thereto, the expert for the applicant, Dr Chang, said on 18 July 2011, that the injury of the applicant did not seem to require 300 sessions of private physiotherapy and he opined that the physiotherapist’s report might be worthwhile to see whether the physiotherapy was given for other problems not related to the injury that arose from the accident.

5.  I have read the physiotherapist’s report and I have not found anything in that report that is probative to the issues of this case.  Mr Cheng, for the applicant, submitted that what is relevant in that report is the progress of treatment but the progress of treatment is in no way relevant to what Dr Chang thought the report might reveal nor is it relevant to the severity of the injury and, furthermore, the physiotherapist is not a qualified medical practitioner that gives any clinical diagnosis, nor is he an orthopaedic surgeon.  What might have been relevant were the medical notes of the doctors that the applicant first saw after the accident and those doctors were Dr Lee and Dr Kwan. 

6.  The date for filing the joint report is well out of time.  The Applicant should get on with the action rather than think of things to do after the deadline for doing something has expired.  Therefore, I do not allow the application to produce the physiotherapist’s report.  The issues are quite straightforward and the parties should get on with the trial. 

(Discussion re time period allowed for joint expert’s report)

8.  Order in terms of paragraph 2 of the applicant’s summons dated 12 July 2011.  Paragraph 1 of the summons disallowed. 

(Discussion re costs)

9.  Costs of the application and of today be to the respondent summarily assessed at $9,100 payable within 21 days.