ICBC Law

Reasons for judgment were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a long-standing sacroiliac joint injury.

In last week’s case (Madsen v. Bekker) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  He suffered various injuries the most serious of which was a strain to his sacroiliac joint.  His symptoms largely recovered although mildly continued through trial and were expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Mr. Justice Truscott provided the following reasons for judgement:

154] I accept the opinion of Dr. McGraw that the plaintiff sustained a strain of his left sacroiliac joint and I reject the opinion of Dr. Watt that it was rather a soft tissue injury to his left iliopsoas muscle and his left piriformis muscle.

[155] Dr. Watt may not have diagnosed a sacroiliac joint strain but he was not prepared to disagree with Dr. McGraw’s diagnosis of that.

[156] Dr. McGraw proved his diagnosis through the image-guided diagnostic block of the joint on March 3, 2009 and October 22, 2009.

[157] In his report of July 24, 2008 Dr. McGraw diagnosed grade 1 soft tissue injury to the lower back area and Dr. Watt in his report of February 9, 2011 also described complaints of non-radiating low back pain at the time of his assessment of January 17, 2011. To that extent the diagnosis of both doctors is similar…

[159] I am prepared to accept some present minor low back injury related to a strain of the left sacroiliac joint causing mild pain at times of prolonged lifting, bending or crouching but I also do not consider that this pain has been disabling to any of the plaintiff’s activities at all…

[163] Although Dr. McGraw says that consideration could be given to a surgical fusion or arthrodesis of the left sacroiliac joint if the joint pain is not managed in the long-term by conservative treatments such as injections, or doing nothing and becoming fit, he does not recommend surgical intervention.

[164] With this opinion of Dr. McGraw that I accept I do not consider the chance of surgical intervention to be at any level sufficient for an award of compensation.

[165] I am satisfied from all the evidence that the plaintiff’s effort to become more fit through his own exercise routines is working sufficiently to resolve the strain in his left sacroiliac joint and any related low back soft tissue injury.

[166] I decline to apply any adverse inference against the plaintiff for failing to call Dr. Feldman, a physiatrist who attended on him. The plaintiff says he was simply told, as Dr. Parkin had told him, to rest. Even if I were to apply any adverse inference I would not know what that inference would be other than the opinion would be no different than all the evidence I have heard.

[167] I am prepared to accept that the plaintiff’s complaints have continued for over four years, but at a mild level, and I consider an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life should be in the amount of $40,000.

For other recent BC Caselaw dealing with non-pecuniary damages for sacroiliac joint injuries you can click here to access my archived posts.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, assessing damages arising from injuries sustained a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Smith v. Williams) the Plaintiff was a young veterinarian.  She was involved in a 2009 collision.  The Defendant crossed the centre-line and caused a head-on collision.  The Plaintiff sustained chronic soft tissue injuries and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The Plaintiff’s symptoms were on-going at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Mr. Justice Betton provided the following reasons:

[33] The plaintiff indicated that the accident has left her with a feeling of vulnerability. She is very anxious in a motor vehicle, especially on highways, envisioning accidents unfolding. There are occasional panic attacks. She gets a tingling and pain down her right arm that is aggravated by repetitive motion and particular movements or positions. One of these, I note, was holding her child while breastfeeding. Others relate to her work as a vet.

[34] She spoke of how the physical and psychological injuries have adversely affected her enjoyment of her wedding and her regret for how she reacted to the stresses associated with the wedding toward her husband. For her part, the plaintiff indicates that she simply battles through her restrictions. She says that the more physically demanding her day, the greater the consequences in symptoms…

[43] This plaintiff is a young professional, early in her career. She has historically been a high-achiever, endowed with intelligence, motivation and physical ability. The motor vehicle collision came as she was planning her wedding and the purchase of a business. Her wedding, as described by her, was not the enjoyable experience that she, as a young woman, had dreamed of.

[44] The purchase of the business completed, and she has been able to live up to the work demands of that practice, facilitated in part by the fact that it is less demanding than work she did prior to acquiring the practice. In addition, her absence for maternity leave coincided with her rehabilitation. She has actively engaged in rehabilitation during all of the significant developments in her life, including being a new mother. The Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms linger and also influence the enjoyment of an activity which is part of everyday life, that is, driving…

[53] Taking what one can from those authorities and applying the general principles, as referenced in Stapley, it is my conclusion that an appropriate award for general damages is $75,000.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for injuries sustained from two motor vehicle collisions.

In last week’s case (Parker v. Lemmon) the Plaintiff was injured in two separate crashes, the first occurred in late 2008 the second the following month.  Fault was admitted by the Defendants for both collisions.  The crashes caused an overlapping indivisible injury and damages were assessed globally.

The Plaintiff’s injuries included a Grade 2 Whiplash Associated Disorder in her upper and lower back long with her neck muscles and ligaments.  This injury persisted and caused the Plaintiff a partial disability in her job as a care-aid with restrictions associated with “repetitive reaching and pulling and pushing…as well as the repetitive bending with regards to her lower back“.

In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $45,000 Mr. Justice Savage provided the following reasons:

[27] In considering non-pecuniary damages in this case I am also cognizant of the Supreme Court of Canada’s summary of the purpose of non-pecuniary damages as set out in Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629 at p. 637:

Thus the amount of an award for non-pecuniary damage should not depend alone upon the seriousness of the injury but upon its ability to ameliorate the condition of the victim considering his or her particular situation. It therefore will not follow that in considering what part of the maximum should be awarded the gravity of the injury alone will be determinative. An appreciation of the individual’s loss is the key and the “need for solace will not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the injury” (Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, Personal Injury Damages in Canada(1981), at p. 373). In dealing with an award of this nature it will be impossible to develop a “tariff”. An award will vary in each case “to meet the specific circumstances of the individual case” (Thornton at p. 284 of S.C.R.).

[28] Such awards will vary in each case to meet specific circumstances. A specific circumstance here is the plaintiff’s overall health condition. That said, I accept that her injuries have significantly impacted her enjoyment of life, including her work, family and social life…

[36] In Fata, the injuries were found to be such that they would not have prevented a return to full-time employment, although with discomfort. Some of the sequelae were resolved at the time of trial, although there was some lingering shoulder pain that would likely not resolve. The Court awarded $45,000 non-pecuniary damages. The factual circumstances are not in all respects similar to the case at bar, but in my view the award in Fata most appropriately approximates what is appropriate here. I note in that case the Court found that the plaintiff could have returned to work but chose not to. In this case the plaintiff did return to her former employment, which her specialist physician opined she could, but she ultimately chose to discontinue that employment and is considering retraining.

[37] In my opinion the appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages in this case is $45,000.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, assessing damages caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Cameron v. Hsu) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  The Plaintiff was rear-ended and pushed into the vehicle ahead of him.  Fault for the crash was admitted by the Defendant focusing the trial on quantum of damages.  The Plaintiff sustained a Grade 2 Whiplash Associated Disorder as a result of the collision.   His symptoms continued at the time of trial some three years following the crash.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Madam Justice Hyslop provided the following reasons:

[85] I have concluded that Mr. Cameron did suffer neck and shoulder injuries as a result of the accident. As a result of these injuries he suffered headaches. Those appear to no longer occur or are infrequent.

[86] I also conclude that these injuries caused Mr. Cameron difficulties in certain seasons at which time Mr. Cameron sought physiotherapy to resolve the symptoms.

[87] I have also concluded and take into consideration in assessing Mr. Cameron’s claim for pain and suffering that Mr. Cameron, at the outset, had a tendency to “myofascial pain in the neck and upper shoulders” [Dr. Laidlow] several years before the 2007 accident. I also conclude that before this accident that Mr. Cameron’s injuries from the 2007 accident were resolved. I also conclude that Mr. Cameron has resisted doing exercises designed to assist or improve the mobility and flexibility in his neck and in the area of his upper shoulder…

[99] Mr. Cameron, at the time of the trial, continued to suffer from tightness in the shoulder and neck beyond that of his pre-existing condition. Mr. Cameron did not lose time at work and he never thought he should do so or would do so. Mr. Cameron, as confirmed by the evidence of his father, sought medical treatment only when there was something wrong. The evidence is that Mr. Cameron has difficulty with his neck and shoulder when doing office work and not when working on-site and in good weather.

[100] Mr. Cameron chose not to pursue exercise as recommended by Dr. Laidlow and his physiotherapist, so it is difficult to determine the progress he would have made had he done so. Taking that into consideration, I award Mr. Cameron general damages in the amount $40,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding damages for chronic pain following a motor vehicle collision.

In this week’s case (Azuma-Dao v. MKA Leasing Ltd.) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the rear motorist.  Following the crash the Plaintiff suffered from chronic pain from soft tissue injuries possibly with “spinal facet joint or disk pathology”.  Her injuries compromised her ability to work in her chosen profession and, despite room for improvement, were expected to continue to cause problems for the foreseeable future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $65,000 Madam Justice Humphries provided the following reasons:

[80] The plaintiff’s life has changed substantially as a result of the accident, and she suffers chronic pain.  From a fit, very active person, she has become withdrawn, moody, and deconditioned.  Her friends and her husband find her to be a different person, no longer active and happy go lucky.  She endures pain every day, but she works very hard at her exercises.  Her work with disabled adults was very important to her and required a fit strong body, which she no longer has.  Despite her withdrawal, she maintains a social life, but the activities she and her friends do are now more sedentary.

[81] I set her non-pecuniary damages at $65,000

Another point of interest was the Court’s discussion of the Adverse Inference principle.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff obtained and produced clinical records from her GP.  She did not call the doctor in support of her case.  The Defendant argued that an adverse inference should be drawn but the Court refused to do so finding that it was open to the Defendant to call this physician if they wished.  Madam Justice Humphries provided the following reasons:

[45] I will mention the issue of adverse inference at this point.  Since all of Dr. Frank’s clinical notes were provided to the defence and Ms. Azuma-Dao admitted the relevant portions on cross-examination, I am not prepared to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff for failing to call Dr. Frank, who was of course available to either side and was in fact on the defendants’ witness list.  However, since the defence gained what they required on cross-examination of the plaintiff, they cannot be faulted either for not calling Dr. Frank.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Court of Appeal setting aside a jury verdict and ordering a new trial in a motor vehicle collision injury claim.  The Court found that the Jury’s award for non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) was “almost derisory” and not compatible with the other awards made.

In last week’s case (Evans v. Metcalfe) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  The Plaintiff sought substantial damages.  A jury was not receptive to much of the Plaintiff’s claim and awarded a fraction of the sought damages.  The awards included $6,000 in special damages, $10,300 for past loss of income and $1,000 for non-pecuniary damages.  The trial judge found these awards to be “shockingly unreasonable”.

The Plaintiff appealed arguing the non-pecuniary damage award could not be reconciled with the other awards.  The BC Court of Appeal agreed stating that the other awards were consistent with a finding of a 9 month injury and a $1,000 pain and suffering award is not compatible with such a finding.  In ordering a new trial the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

[9] In the present case, there was a body of medical evidence that did not depend on the veracity or reliability of the appellant plaintiff or her primary treating physician that was supportive of the thesis that she continued to suffer from the sequelae of the April 2006 accident throughout 2006 into the early months of 2007. As I earlier noted, the quantum of the awards made by the jury under the heads of past income loss and special damages are reasonably susceptible of the interpretation that the jury made a factual decision that the effects of the accident did persist for about nine months post-accident.

[10] In my respectful opinion, these findings of the jury as reflected in their pecuniary awards make the award for non-pecuniary damages very anomalous. It is not impossible that the jury may have taken a quite censorious view of the appellant because of her economic circumstances or because of her conduct in importuning the physician to give her a note in aid of possible financial advantage. These would not be judicious reasons for denying her an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages. As I observed, there was a body of credible evidence that would support an award under this head significantly greater than the amount awarded at trial. While there can be considerable variance in awards made under this head as the cases cited to us demonstrate, this award seems almost derisory.

[11] Generally this Court must be very restrained in any interference with a jury disposition as a consistent body of precedent makes plain. However, I have been persuaded that this is one of those rare cases where the interests of justice make intervention appropriate. The degree of anomaly in the respective awards, coupled with a very real possibility of the triers of fact taking an unduly severe view of the appellant’s conduct unrelated to her physical condition persuade me that the award made by the jury for non-pecuniary damages cannot stand.

[12] We were invited by counsel for the appellant to either fix awards under various heads ourselves, or refer the matter to the trial judge for assessment. The latter course does not commend itself to me for two reasons:  the judge has previously expressed certain fairly strong preliminary views and it is of course the right of the defendant respondent to choose the forum of a jury if so minded. As to the possible remedy of this Court adjusting upward awards made by the jury, this is very much dependent on factual issues, including particularly issues of credibility. Historically this Court has been properly reluctant to engage in factual determinations in this class of matter. In my view, the only appropriate resolution of this case is to set aside the order made at trial and order a new trial and I would so order.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for the aggravation of pre-existing injuries caused by a so-called Low Velocity Impact.

In today’s case (Pearlman v. Phelps Leasing Ltd.) the Plaintiff, a 77 year old retired lawyer, was involved in a 2007 collision.  He had pre-existing injuries from a 2004 collision and the Court found that these were exacerbated for a short while following the 2007 crash.  The Court expressed serious concern about the Plaintiff’s credibility with the following observation:

[3] The plaintiff’s credibility from the onset of the trial before me through to its conclusion dissipated like aspirin in a glass of water until all that remained was a murky, cloud-like substance. Amongst his many inconsistencies and exaggerations, the most shocking was that the testimony of his injuries in the trial before me was nearly identical to the testimony he gave at the 2008 trial, in which he blamed the 2004 Accident for all the problems he was experiencing in 2008.

Despite this the Court found that the Plaintiff did suffer injury in the 2007 crash.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $20,000 Madam Justice Kloegman provided the following comments:

[44] After having reviewed all of the exhibited medical records and reports, and after considering all of the viva voce testimony, it seems fair to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff experienced from the 2007 Accident an exacerbation of his pre-existing symptoms. However, it appears to have been minor and not long in duration. The plaintiff developed no new symptoms. He was back doing physical labour within a few days, and his complaints from that time to the present would likely have continued, regardless of the 2007 Accident. His pre-existing condition was well described by Dr. Baird and Dr. Keyes and there was no reliable, positive evidence to indicate that he developed some further injury of a permanent nature as a result of the 2007 Accident. It is telling, indeed, that the plaintiff’s statement of claim with respect to the 2004 Accident is almost identical to his statement of claim respecting the 2007 Accident…

[47] The case law indicates that a reasonable award of non-pecuniary damages for the plaintiff’s aggravated injury is in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 (Hough v. Wyatt, 2011 BCSC 910; and Dempsey v. Oh, 2011 BCSC 216). It is interesting to note that in both these other cases, the plaintiff was found to be lacking credibility and the Court was obliged to rely on the medical evidence to determine the cause of the plaintiff’s claims of injury. I find myself in a similar position, and on the evidence before me, I award the plaintiff $20,000 in total damages arising from the 2007 Accident.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding a Plaintiff damages and costs for modest injuries following a motor vehicle collision.  Although the claim was straight-forward and damages were within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the Plaintiff was awarded costs with Mr. Justice Burnyeat finding that the Supreme Court’s summary trial process is a reasonable alternative to the backlog litigants face in Small Claims Court.

In today’s case (Parmar v. Lahay) the Plaintiff sustained a modest whiplash injury as a result of motor vehicle collision.  ICBC ran the “Low Velocity Impact” defence arguing no compensation should be awarded.  The trial proceeded summarily and took less than one day.  The Plaintiff’s evidence was accepted and non-pecuniary damages of $12,000 were awarded.

The Court went on to award costs despite the modest quantum.  In doing so Mr. Justice Burnyeat provided the following reasons:

[9] I cannot reach the conclusion that the legal or factual complexity of the case, the need for discovery of documents and examination for discovery, and the need for a judgment enforceable outside of British Columbia are applicable reasons why this action was commenced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia rather than in Provincial Court.  However, I am satisfied that the summary trial procedure available in the Supreme Court and the availability of costs makes the Supreme Court a preferable and justified forum for this Action.

[10] I take judicial notice that this case reached the Court for decision much more quickly than if the Action had been commenced in the Provincial Court.  In this regard, I take judicial notice of the absence of a considerable number of judges at the Provincial Court level and the backlog in hearing matters that the failure to appoint more judges has produced.

[11] I also take into account the ability of the Plaintiff to have costs awarded in this Court but not in Small Claims Court.  In that that regard, I adopt the reasoning of Harvey J. in Zale v. Colwell, 2010 BCSC 1040, where he states:

In each of the above three decisions [Spencer v. Popham, supra; Faedo v. Dowell, 2007 BCSC 1985; and Kanani v. Misiurna, 2008 BCSC 1274] the primary reason for awarding the plaintiff costs, in circumstances not unlike these facing the plaintiff here, was the consideration that given the need to retain counsel to battle an institutional defendant, a reasonable consideration in determining the forum is the matter of indemnity for the costs of counsel.  (at para. 14)

[12] I also adopt the statement of Humphries J. in Kanani, supra:

… in a situation where the defendant put the plaintiff to the proof of having suffered any injury at all, thus making her credibility a crucial issue at trial, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to require the assistance of counsel.  She was therefore justified in commencing the action in Supreme Court where she could hope to recover some of the costs it was necessary for her to expend in retaining counsel to recover the compensation to which she was found to be entitled. This reasoning has application here as well. (at para. 8).

[13] I take into account that it may well be economically unrealistic for counsel to be retained for up to three appearances in Small Claims Court where the damages sought are nominal.  This must be contrasted with the institutional defendant and its unlimited resources.  In an action in Supreme Court, counsel for a plaintiff is only required to appear once in Court if an application pursuant to Rule 9‑7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules is appropriate.  In the case at bar, the application has taken approximately one hour.

[14] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff should be entitled to his costs throughout on a Party and Party (Scale B) basis.

Reasons for judgement were released this week providing feedback on valuing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) noting that injuries cannot be addressed in a piece-meal fashion and instead the total consequences need to be considered.

In this week’s case (Engqvist v. Doyle) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions.  She was not at fault for either.  The crashes caused various soft tissue injuries which required diagnostic medial nerve blocks and depending on the result the possibility of facet rhizotomies.  The Plaintiff also sustained a dental injury.   Given the planned further medical intervention there was likelihood of improvement but also a good chance that the Plaintiff’s injuries would pose permanent difficulties.  Global Non-Pecuniary Damages of $70,000 were assessed for the Plaintiff’s injuries.

In arriving at this figure Mr. Justice Rogers provided the following comments addressing the fact that it is wrong to stack injuries in assessing non-pecuniary damage awards:

[28] The plaintiff’s approach to assessing non-pecuniary damages is flawed. Discrete physical injuries are not items on a grocery list, and the court is not a cashier totting up the damage. The plaintiff’s dental injuries cannot be given a separate line-item in the assessment of her non-pecuniary loss. The assessment is a global exercise and must be based upon the effect that the injuries as a whole have and will have upon the plaintiff’s life.

[29] I find that the plaintiff’s injuries have had and will in the future have a significant impact upon the plaintiff’s ability to enjoy life. The injuries have curtailed the plaintiff’s otherwise active lifestyle. She does not ride her bicycle as much as she used to, she does not play golf with the same frequency or engagement as before the accidents, and her overall participation in life has been diminished. She has a constant ache in the soft tissues over her right shoulder blade. It takes very little use of the plaintiff’s right arm to cause that ache to escalate to a serious pain. The plaintiff will likely undergo at least one series of medial nerve block injections. These will be painful procedures. They are diagnostic in nature – that is to say: the discomfort that she will experience during these injections will be only part of the price in pain that she will have to pay. If the nerve blocks are effective, then the plaintiff will likely undergo one or more rhizotomies. These will be wildly painful. If successful, the rhizotomies will afford the plaintiff with considerable but not complete relief from her symptoms. The relief will likely not be permanent and will last anywhere from six months to five years. The plaintiff may choose to undergo as many as two more rhizotomies. She might, on the other hand, decide to simply live with the pain. In either case, the plaintiff’s enjoyment of life will be reduced by symptoms attributable to the accidents.

[30] I have reviewed the authorities upon which the parties rely in support of their respective positions. No one case is entirely on point, nor is any one case completely irrelevant. In my view, the proper amount of non-pecuniary damages for the first collision is $65,000 and for the second collision it is $5,000.

For a discussion of the factors BC Courts do consider in assessing non-pecuniary damages you can click here for a podcast I uploaded last year.

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for motor vehicle related injuries.

In yesterday’s case (Kardum v. Asadi-Moghadam) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 collisions.  He was not at fault for either.   The Plaintiff’s physicians provided evidence that he suffered from chronic soft tissue injuries as a result of these crashes.  ICBC’s expert (Dr. Grypma) provided evidence minimizing the Plaintiff’s injuries.  Mr. Justice Armstrong preferred the Plaintiff’s physicians and concluded that the collisions were responsible for the Plaintiff’s ongoing pain.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 the Court made the following findings:

[112] I conclude that Mr. Kardum suffered a chronic soft tissue injury to his neck, shoulder, and upper back region caused in the accidents of 2007 and 2009. In addition to those injuries Mr. Kardum suffers ongoing chronic headaches and disrupted sleep secondary to his neck pain. His prognosis is guarded and it is unlikely that he will become symptom free. The intensity of these symptoms will vary over time and he will likely achieve some improvement over the next one to two years. The measure of that improvement is unknown but may be a function of his efforts in pursuing the recommendations of Dr. Caillier…

[161] I conclude that Mr. Kardum suffers from chronic pain involving his left posterior lateral neck, his posterior shoulder, and upper back region. He continually has headaches and disrupted sleep secondary to the pain involving his neck. He has some prospect of improvement in symptoms but will likely have a measure of pain or discomfort for the balance of his life…

[173] I have concluded that the nature of Mr. Kardum’s injuries coupled with the duration of symptoms that are likely to be permanent will diminish his lifestyle and affect his social relationships. There may be improvement but there will be a permanent reduction in his enjoyment of a lifestyle that was, before the accidents, unbounded by any physical limitations. He has been resilient to the point of maintaining an active physical exercise routine but will continue to have the nagging discomfort and inconvenience of the symptoms he now complains about. He is a young man and will have these symptoms over many years; his will be a different life because of the accident.

[174] I conclude that Mr. Kardum is entitled to non-pecuniary damages of $70,000.

This decision is also worth reviewing for the Court’s comments on the various expert witnesses that testified.  In rejecting ICBC’s independent medical examiner Mr. Justice Armstrong provided the following reasons:

[111] Dr. Grypma is an orthopaedic surgeon. He is not a specialist in rehabilitation medicine. His opportunity to observe and examine Mr. Kardum was restricted to a single 1.5 hour examination on January 31, 2011. He confirmed that Mr. Kardum did not demonstrate any nonorganic symptoms. He was not aware of the amount of damage to the defendant’s vehicle in the first accident. He did not make the same observations of Mr. Kardum’s physical symptoms noted by Drs. Caillier and Schukett. Where there are conflicts between his opinions and the evidence of Drs. Caillier and Schukett, I accept the opinions of the latter two doctors.