ICBC Law

I’m writing today’s non-pecuniary damages case update in Kelowna, BC where I’m finishing up some work on a handful of ICBC claims.

Reasons for judgement were released earlier this week by the BC Supreme Court awarding non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) for headaches and chronic pain following soft tissue and TMJ injuries.

In this week’s case (Ho v. Dosanjh), the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 BC motor vehicle collision.   It was a rear-end crash and the Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained over $7,000 in damage.   The Plaintiff’s injuries continued to cause him problems by the time of trial (nearly 4 years after the collision).  Mr. Justice Silverman awarded the Plaintiff $75,000 for his non-pecuniary loss and in reaching this figure the Court noted the following about the extent and severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries:

[21]         As a result of the subject MVA, the plaintiff suffered pain in his neck, upper back, shoulder, jaw, numbness down the left arm, headaches, and insomnia.  He was on a variety of medications for a period of time and was unable to work.

[22]         The most serious and ongoing consequences of the MVA are the TMJ and the headaches, which leave him in constant pain.

[23]         Dr. Mehta confirmed that the plaintiff suffers from pain in his jaw, teeth, and  related areas, and that he suffers from headaches as a result of the MVA.

[24]         He testified that these areas of concern had not improved significantly in the four years since the MVA and further recovery was unlikely; that the plaintiff will suffer long-term symptoms that impact on all aspects of his functioning; and that he should avoid any activities that involve jumping or jarring.  Dr. Mehta recommended conservative care, including continuation of various treatments which were already ongoing, such as physiotherapy and massage.

[25]         Dr. le Nobel diagnosed the plaintiff with diffuse myofascial pain syndrome, TMJ, and chronic headaches.  He testified that the plaintiff’s capacity for recreational pursuits has been compromised and that this will continue for the foreseeable future.  He testified that, given the amount of time that has passed since the MVA, there is unlikely to be any further improvement.

[26]         Dr. Weiss confirmed that the plaintiff has chronic neck, back, and TMJ pain and that, in his opinion, “they will remain a long term issue.”  He noted that the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative condition, which made him more susceptible to injury from the MVA.

[27]         Dr. Gilbart provided an independent medical report and was called as a witness for the defence.  He confirmed that the MVA aggravated the plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative condition in his neck.  He opined that the “prognosis for significant further improvement in his symptoms at this point is guarded.”  He noted that the plaintiff was asymptomatic prior to the MVA and was functioning at a very high level in all aspects of his life.  Dr. Gilbart also noted that, despite the post-MVA pain complained of by the plaintiff, he still appeared to be functioning at a very high level.  Finally, he opined that, given the pre-existing condition of the plaintiff as well as his prior history, he likely would have had flare-ups in the future even if the MVA had not occurred.

[28]          With respect to the jaw pain and headaches, Dr. Gilbart deferred to the expertise of Dr. Mehta.

[29]         Presently, the plaintiff has not returned to most of his pre-MVA athletic activities.  He no longer is involved in volleyball, softball, aggressive hiking, or skiing.  He does still rollerblade, although not as aggressively as before, and he has recently begun to swim with the encouragement of his girlfriend, who is a physiotherapist’s assistant.

[30]         Various friends testified that the plaintiff’s personality has changed.  He is moody, irritable, withdrawn, quiet, rarely socializes, and not as pleasant to spend time with as he used to be.  It was clear to me, when watching the plaintiff in the gallery of the courtroom that he was distressed when he heard this testimony.  He subsequently testified that he had not actually heard these witnesses say this before…

76]         I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered neck, back, jaw, and shoulder pain, and that he continues to suffer on a daily basis, particularly from TMJ and headaches.

[77]         I am satisfied that it has affected his recreational and athletic activities, which were an important part of his life.

[78]         I am satisfied that there is unlikely to be much further improvement.

[79]         I am also satisfied that, while he is suffering pain, he is nevertheless able to function in a reasonably normal way.  He certainly appeared to be reasonably comfortable when giving evidence.  He also continued to work full-time after a period of months during which he was unable to work, although I accept that work is much less physically comfortable for him than it used to be.

[80]         While I accept the evidence that he might have suffered another flare-up even in the absence of the MVA, I am satisfied that the MVA was, and is, the primary cause of his current difficulties.

[81]         With respect to ongoing treatments for the rest of his life, I am satisfied that, while these might provide him with some periodic temporary relief, they are not likely to result in any improvement.  Consequently, what the plaintiff might perceive as the “need” for such ongoing treatments, will be reflected as an aspect of the non-pecuniary award.

[82]         In all the circumstances, I award $75,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

Further to my previous post on this topic, the law is clear that a Plaintiff can successfully sue a Defendant for physical injuries even if the Defendant never makes contact with a Plaintiff.  Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this.

In today’s case (Bern v. Jung) the Plaintiff was injured in 2 separate incidents.  In the first incident the Plaintiff was riding a bike down a ramp into a parkade.  At the same time the Defendant was leaving the parkade and drove his vehicle ‘in the wrong direction in the entrance lane towards the ramp area‘.  The Plaintiff “immediately applied his brakes, losing control of his bicycle and falling over the handlebars.  He fell out into the roadway.   Fortunately (the Defendant) was able to avoid striking (the Plaintiff)”.

The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff should bear some responsibility.  Mr. Justice Powers disagreed and found that the Defendant was 100% responsible for the incident despite not striking the Plaintiff.  In reaching this decision Mr. Justice Powers noted as follows:

[13]        I find that the defendant has not proven that Mr. Bern was contributorily negligent.  Mr. Bern was entitled to assume that other people would be acting properly.  The evidence does not establish that his speed was excessive to the extent that it was negligent.  I find that the sole cause of the accident was Mr. Jung’s decision to take a shortcut and travel against the direction in which traffic was supposed to flow and could reasonably be expected to flow.

[14]        Mr. Bern lost control of his bicycle and fell because of the sudden and unexpected presence of Mr. Jung’s vehicle travelling in the wrong direction.  Mr. Bern was forced to act quickly and to apply his brakes forcefully.  He essentially acted in the agony of the collision and should not be found contributorily negligent because he did so.

[15]        I find that Mr. Jung is 100% liable for the accident on June 21, 2007.

The Plaintiff suffered various injuries including pain in his clavicle, one or two fractured ribs, a fractured right triquetrum (a small bone on the outside portion of the back of the hand) and broken teeth which required dental work and root canals.

Some of the injuries were aggravated in a subsequent rear end accident.  The Court went on to award the Plaintiff $50,000 for his non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) as a result of both accidents.  In reaching this figure Mr. Justice Powers summarized the effect of the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

[36] I find that Mr. Bern indeed was a physically active and motivated individual before the first accident.  He made an honest effort to attempt to return to his prior physical active state, but is continuing to have some difficulty because of the soft tissue injuries, leaving him with lingering symptoms.  The second accident aggravated those injuries and probably extended the time in which they will affect Mr. Bern.  The second accident aggravated the problems he had with his shoulder, neck and back.  The aggravation of his pain and problems he is suffering in attempting to exercise also added to his depression and anxiety.  I accept that on occasion he is anxious about driving and that this results from the second motor vehicle accident, but that it does not prevent him from driving…

[40] I do find, however, that on the balance of probabilities, in other words that it is more likely than not, that those symptoms will be reduced over time…

[44] I find that general damages should be $50,000.00.  I apportion $15,000.00 of that amount to the second accident.  I am satisfied that the second accident aggravated the existing injuries and contributed to some additional injuries.  However, the significant injuries and pain and suffering arise from the first accident.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry that are worth reviewing for anyone involved in an ICBC Claim for damages for accident related Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

In today’s case (Sauer v. Scales) liability was denied but Mr. Justice Cohen found the defendant 100% at fault for the collision.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $135,000 Mr. Justice Cohen found as follows with respect to the severity of the accident related injuries:

I find that the plaintiff’s medical experts not only established the plaintiff’s diagnosis that he suffered from thoracic outlet syndrome, but also that of a multiple crush syndrome… he sustained a serious TMJ injury as a result of the accident, and that he should undertake dental reconstruction to treat this disorder…

[256] In the result, I find, on the whole of the evidence, that the plaintiff has proven to the requisite standard that as a result of the accident he sustained moderate to severe injuries to his eyes, teeth, jaw, neck and back.  I accept Dr. Fry’s opinion, confirmed by the other experts for the plaintiff who opined on this issue, that as a result of the accident the plaintiff has significant musculoskeletal and neurological symptoms with respect to his left arm and that the diagnosis is one of multiple crush syndrome, where he has evidence of cervical spine compression, of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome, of cubital tunnel syndrome and of carpal tunnel syndrome.

[257] I also find that the injuries he sustained in the accident and the requirement to take therapy and medication on a continuing basis since the accident to treat those injuries has had a significant impact on the quality of the plaintiff’s life, including sleeping, eating and physical fitness, as well as upon his social and personal relationships.

[258] I am mindful of the evidence that since the accident the plaintiff has experienced varying degrees of improvement in his overall symptoms; that to some limited extent he has been able to return to physical pursuits such as tennis, jogging and skiing; that he has been able to travel on family vacations; and, that during the time he was involved with the affairs of Global Synfrac he frequently commuted to Calgary to attend Board meetings.  I am also mindful of the evidence that his prognosis remains poor with regard to his TMJ disorder and thoracic outlet syndrome, and there remains the possibility of him having to undergo further surgical procedures to address these conditions.  Moreover, he will have to continue taking therapy and medications to treat his ongoing symptoms.

[259] Taking all of the above factors into account, I find that $135,000 is a fair and reasonable sum to award the plaintiff for general damages.

Paragraphs 233-236 of this case will be of particular interest to anyone who has undergone an ‘independent medical exam‘ with Dr. A.I Munro.   Dr. Munro has conducted many of these exams on behalf of ICBC and often disagrees with the diagnosis of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.  Mr. Justice Cohen held that “no weight should be given to the opinions of Dr. Munro on this issue (the Plaintiff’s Thoracic Outlet Syndrome)”.  In reaching this conclusion extensive portions of Dr. Munro’s cross examination were reproduced which I set out below:

[234] In the report of Dr. A.I. Munro, a specialist in thoracic and cardiac surgery, dated March 9, 2006, he concluded that as a result of the accident the plaintiff sustained a mild soft tissue injury of the neck and that he did not have thoracic outlet syndrome.  He also concluded that the plaintiff had a left ulnar entrapment syndrome which was causing his disability, and that the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome had recovered, stating that, “only one hand was on the steering wheel so it cannot be due to the MVA.”  He also said that the plaintiff’s disability is associated with numbness and weakness caused by a left ulnar entrapment syndrome plus cervical nerve root pains.  However, despite his experience as a thoracic surgeon, Dr. Munro testified that he may have done one thoracic outlet syndrome surgery between the years 1994 to 2001.  He said that he may have done one at St. Paul’s Hospital, but he was not sure, and otherwise a previous one would have been done at UBC Hospital.  He also testified:

Q         — at VGH?  Mm-hm.  And what type of surgeries were you performing over that period from ‘68 to 1990, if I have the years roughly correct.

A          General thoracic surgery and cardiac surgery, both closed and open heart surgery.

Q         Okay.  And of the — I take it there were other surgeons who performed a similar practice to yours?

A          I suppose all the surgeons had slight variations in their practices.

Q         Mm-hm.  Were any of these surgeons –

A          Some of them were purely thoracic, some of them were purely cardiac, and some were mixed.

Q         Okay.  Were any of the ones that were purely thoracic involved with thoracic outlet syndrome and surgeries on that condition?

A          Early on, no.  Probably I saw most of them until probably Dr. Fry, Dr. Nelems came on staff, and they saw most of the thoracic outlet surgery after that.

Q         And when would that be?

A          I’m not sure of the actual dates.

Q         Was it shortly after –

A          Probably in the — my guess would be the early ’80s, –

…

Q         And prior to 2001 when you were at VGH after Dr. Fry and the other physician you mentioned began to specialize, those cases would be — TOS cases would be sent to them for –

A          Yes.

Q         — assessment at surgery; correct?

A          Yes.

…

Q         Yeah.

A          The second aspect is looking at a specific five-year period and analyzing what cases I had seen during that five-year period.

Q         And what five-year period is this?

A          That was 2002, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Q         Mm-hm.  Mm-hm.  And — and that — that is where you were giving me these approximate numbers?

A          Correct.

Q         Okay.  So during that period, there were somewhere between 25 to 30 per cent that were involving non-severe neck injuries that — where — that could have been, in your opinion, thoracic outlet syndrome issues?

A          No.  There was a fair percentage of people who had such bizarre symptoms and signs that you couldn’t fit them into any logical medical diagnosis, –

Q         Mm-hm.

A          — often associated with psychiatric disease.

Q         Mm-hm.  But other specialists had assessed them as thoracic outlet syndromes?

A          Yes.

Q         Mm-hm.

A          These were all people who had been sent to me to consider this diagnosis.

Q         Mm-hm.  Now, going back to my question in terms of your — oh, maybe I’ll finish.  In that five-year period, I take it, Doctor, there were people who you did concur with the other physician that the diagnosis was thoracic –

A          In that particular –

Q         — outlet syndrome?

A          — five-year period, no.  In the previous five years, yes.

Q         Okay.  And how many occasions was that, do you recall?

A          In the previous five years, –

Q         Mm-hm.

A          — I think it was two, but I cannot tell you for sure.

Q         Two of approximately 30 per year?  Thirty reports a year?

A          Probably at that time I was seeing less than 30 per year.

Q         Mm-hm.

A          I do not have the exact figures –

Q         Sure.

A          — for that previous –

Q         Okay.

A          — five-year period.

Q         So — but in the last 10 years it would be reports in the order of several hundred reports, and of those several hundred reports you concurred with the other specialists on two occasions that you can recall?

A          Yes.

Short clear reasons for judgment were released by Mr. Justice Savage of the BC Supreme Court yesterday awarding a Plaintiff compensation for car accident related headaches.

This is one of the crispest judgements I have read in quite some time.  I recommend reading the full judgment for anyone advancing an ICBC pain and suffering claim for headaches as the issues are succinct in this case and it does not get bogged down in legalese.

The Plaintiff was injured when she was 4 years old.    She was in a proper infant car seat in her family van when it was broadsided by the defendant who failed to stop at a stop sign.  The accident was in 2002 and the claim finally went to trial in 2008.  For those of you not well versed in ICBC injury claims I should point out that there is nothing unusual about this timeline.  In infant injury claims in BC, most limitation periods are delayed until the infant’s 19th birthday.  One of the reasons for this is because doctors often can’t give a prognosis for an infant’s injuries until they reach adulthood.

In this case most of the Plaintiff’s injuries were not disputed.  She suffered from a broken tooth, some injury to her legs which healed in a few months, soft tissue injuries to her neck and back which took about one year to heal.

What was at issue was headaches.  The Plaintiff claimed that she had on-going headaches over 5 years after the accident and that these were caused by the accident.  The defendant said there are other potential causes for the headaches such as migraines or other trauma.  It is worth pointing out that such a ‘causation’ argument is typical in most ICBC injury claims that go to trial.  Usually the court hears competing theories about the extent of injury and the cause of injury.  (click here to see an example of just how far apart 2 sides can be in an ICBC injury case involving headaches)

The court accpeted that the ongoing headaches were indeed caused by the accident and summarized the accident related injuries as follows: “very mild injuries post-accident that have completely resolved with ongoing significant but somewhat sporadic headaches continuing requiring the occasional use of Tylenol.”

Mr. Justice Savage noted that the headaches have persisted for some six years althogh there has been some improvement.  He went on to value the non-pecuniary loss (pain and suffering) for these headaches at $35,000.

 Do you have questions about this case or an ICBC headache case that you wish to discuss with a BC personal injury lawyer?  If so click here to arrange your free consultation with Victoria ICBC injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken (with associated offices in Victoria, Nanaimo, Kelowna, Port Hardy, Kamloops, Duncan, Courtenay, Qualicum Beach, Port McNeil, Tofino, Vernon, Dawson Creek, Revelstoke, Ucluelet, Salmon Arm, Castlegar, Sicamous and Nakusp)

In highly anticipated reasons for judgement released today, following a 4 week trial in late 2007, Mr. Justice Maczko awarded a severely injured Plaintiff over $1,000,000 in compensation as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The issues to be decided at trial were liability (who was at fault) and quantum (the value of the injuries) as a result of a significant accident which occurred in West Vancouver, BC in 2004.

The Plaintiff, who was 26 years old at the time, was standing in a roadway in West Vancouver when he was struck by a Hummer SUV driven by the Defendant. The Plaintiff sustained serious injuries including a traumatic brain injury, scalp wound, bilateral wrist and jaw fractures, the loss of several teeth, and soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The traumatic brain injury was the most significant of these in terms of the Plaintiff’s employability and need for future medical care.

In the end the court found the Defendant entirely at fault an awarded over $1,000,000 in damages to the Plaintiff.

Addressing the issue of liability at paragraph of 127 of the judgement, the court held as follows:

[127] The Hummer travelled too quickly for the existing conditions. Mr. Samieian was negligent in moving his vehicle too quickly and travelling around the cube van when his view of his path was obscured. It is more likely that the accident arose from driver error than from a complete failure of all controls on the Hummer. It is unlikely that steering, braking and acceleration all malfunctioned at once, and without leaving anything detectable on inspection after the accident.

[128] As a result, the defendants are entirely responsible for the accident and for the losses it caused Mr. Dikey.

As is often the case in ICBC claims involving brain injuries, the court heard from numerous expert physicians including neurologists, a neuropsychologist, and a Physiatrist (physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist).

In the end the court made the following findings regarding the Plaintiff’s injuries:

[109] In summary, Mr. Dikey suffered many injuries as a result of the accident. The most significant injury in terms of functioning was the traumatic brain injury. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the injury was moderate when it occurred, but this is of little assistance in determining the long-term impact of the injury.

[110] Mr. Dikey’s continuing cognitive problems include significant limitations with memory, planning, organizing, attention, concentration, awareness, judgement, decision-making, language, reasoning, abstract thinking, mental flexibility, and calculations. He forgets to eat and take his medications regularly, and forgets appointments. He also suffers depression, isolation and limited social support and interactions. He has minimal initiation and motivation.

[111] Mr. Dikey suffered serious head and jaw injuries. Dr. Goldstein recommends investigating jaw reconstruction, likely requiring refracturing the jaw on both sides, and tooth replacement. Mr. Dikey and his family were undecided for several years about whether to pursue that treatment, owing to the risk of damage to a facial nerve. The evidence suggests that the risk is small and any damage that might occur would probably be temporary.

[112] Mr. Dikey suffered two broken wrists. His left wrist healed appropriately, but the right wrist did not. He does not have pain-free full range of motion of his right wrist owing to the way the fracture healed. The suggested surgery will give him a very good chance of increased range of motion without pain.

[113] Mr. Dikey suffered injury to his right knee. The recommended surgery for his right knee would have a good likelihood of relieving his right knee pain.

[114] Mr. Dikey has continuing pain from his soft tissue injury to his neck and back. His cuts and bruises have healed, but he has a visible scar on his forehead and in his scalp. His primary complaint is of headaches, which can be so bad at times that they lead to vomiting. They are his most frequent and significant cause of pain.

The court summarized the profound effects of the injuries as follows:

[142] Mr. Dikey’s life has changed profoundly as a consequence of the accident. He is unlikely to work, and has lost the self-esteem, enjoyment and income that is available from work. While he retains the ability to walk and talk and engage in the activities of daily living, his cognitive problems are such that he will require some assistance for the rest of his life. His most significant loss is the loss of cognitive abilities. He also suffers severe headaches. He has chronic pain in the neck. His pain and the lost function of his right wrist are likely to improve following surgery. He will likely have on-going problems with his neck and back.

In the end damages were assessed as follows:

$215,000 for non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering)

$500,000 for lost future earning capacity

$350,000 for cost of future care

If you have questions about an ICBC claim or a brain injury claim that you would like to discuss with an ICBC claims lawyer feel free to contact Erik Magraken for a free consultation.