Our firm did not consent to our client undergoing this assessment, as she had previously undergone an assessment by a psychiatrist and the defendant was yet to serve the report. We anticipate that the defendant’s preferred psychiatrist report was not served as it was supportive of our client’s case. Our firm defended our client vigorously from the unfair and unreasonable methods that the defendant’s Insurer was attempting to inflict upon our client, and we were not afraid to fight the matter before a judge in court.

Further, the psychologist selected by the defendant required the neuropsychological assessment to occur in person and believed that the assessment could not be undertaken via video conferencing, during the peak of COVID-19. This meant our client was required to travel to Sydney to be assessed. Our client resides in a different state and due to COVID-19, our client would be required to self-isolate for 14 days. Our firm was of the view that this would have detrimental effects on our client’s mental health and would aggravate her psychological symptoms, hence we obtained medical evidence to support this position.

The defendant was of the view that only their preferred neuropsychologist in Sydney was appropriate and they insisted that our client fly or drive from out of state to Sydney for their second assessment of our client’s psychological history.

The defendant briefed a barrister to press their case, whilst our firm relied upon a senior solicitor, and we were able to achieve an outcome, where our client was provided with a clear advantage.

The Court was of the view that the defendant was entitled to a neuropsychological assessment, however, the Court agreed with our client about the negative impacts of travel and self-isolation on her mental health.

Ultimately, the Court’s verdict was if the defendant wished for our client to undergo neuropsychological assessment this would need to occur near our client’s residence outside of New South Wales and not with the preferred medical expert of the defendant.

The Court was of the view that if the defendant wanted to exercise its right to choose medical assessments for our client, it would need to bear the costs and inconvenience of doing so.

If you are looking for lawyers who are willing to vigorously fight for your claim, properly prepare for your claim, protect your rights and not back down to large insurance companies, contact our expert Public Liability Team at Gerard Malouf & Partners today.