Author: ERIK MAGRAKEN

$75,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Mild/Moderate Soft Tissue Injuries With Resulting Chronic Pain

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 14, 2019. Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries as a result of a motor vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Dueck v. Lee) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2016 collision which the Defendant admitted fault for. The crash resulted in mild/moderate soft tissue injuries some of which lingered and led to chronic pain. The prognosis for full recovery was poor. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Mr. Justice Giaschi made the following findings and provided the following reasons:

ICBC Expert Opinion “Of Little To No Assistance To the Court”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 4, 2019. Posted in ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Cases.

Adding to this site’s archived posts of judicial criticism of expert witness advocacy, reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding that an ICBC hired expert witness’ opinion was “of little to no assistance to the Court“.

In today’s case (Tench v. Van Bugnum) the Plaintiff was injured in two collisions that the Defendants admitted fault for. The Plaintiff presented evidence that the collisions resulted in chronic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (“TOS”) resulting in significant impairment. The Defendant’s insurer, ICBC, hired a doctor who did not examine the Plaintiff and provided an opinion rejecting the diagnosis. In dismissing this opinion as being of ‘little to no assistance‘ Madam Justice Fleming provided the following reasons:

BC Court of Appeal Upholds Costs Awards To Plaintiff To Avoid “Pyrrhic Victory”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 4, 2019. Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 9.

In 2017 the BC Supreme Court awarded a litigant injured in a vehicle collision costs despite receiving a jury verdict far less than a pre-trial settlement offer from ICBC. The court concluded that if the Plaintiff was stripped of costs and ordered to pay ICBC’s costs the result would result in pyrrhic victory inconsistent with the result the jury was looking to achieve.

ICBC appealed arguing they should have been awarded costs. In reasons released today (Bains v. Antle) the BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and found the trial judge properly exercised their discretion in this case. The Court provided the following reasons:

BC Court of Appeal Dismisses Rear End Collision Negligence Allegations

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on November 1, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

While there are times when a vehicle that is rear-ended by another can be found at fault for the collision in the usual course of things the rear driver bears full responsibility. Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Court of Appeal upholding such a finding.

In today’s case (Bains v. Chatakanonda) the Defendant stopped to execute a left hand turn when the Plaintiff rear ended his vehicle. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed at trial with the judge finding her fully at fault for the crash. On appeal the Plaintiff argued the Defendant should looked in his rear view mirror prior to stopping for his turn and failing to do so was negligent. In rejecting this argument and upholding the claim dismissal the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

“Unconstitutional” ICBC Expert Witness Rule Struck Down By BC Supreme Court

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 25, 2019. Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11.

Earlier this year BC’s Attorney General surprised the legal community with changes to the BC Supreme Court Rules limiting the number of expert reports in motor vehicle injury prosecutions. The rule changes were brought without notice to the profession, were retroactive and were drafted to save a primary litigant, ICBC, money at the cost of the substantive rights of individuals before the judiciary.

In April a legal challenge was launched arguing these changes were unconstitutional.

Today the Chief Justice of the BC Supreme Court ruled on challenge and declared that these changes were “of no force and effect” due to their unconstitutional nature.

Mr. Justice Hinkson provided the following reasons finding these changes were out of line:

$70,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Low Back Injury With Nerve Root Irritation

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 17, 2019. Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic low back injury.

In today’s case (Suc v. Skelton) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 collision that the Defendant admitted fault for. The crash caused a bulged disc in the Plaintiff’s low spine which contacted his nerve root at L5-S1. His prognosis for recovery was poor. The injury caused significant limitations in the types of activities the Plaintiff could participate in. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 Madam Justice Baker provided the following reasons:

“Little Weight” Given To ICBC Experts in Three Cases Released Today

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 10, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

The BC government is making more noise about Rule of Court reforms regarding expert opinion evidence in personal injury cases in an effort to save ICBC money. Their not so subtle message is that Plaintiff’s hire too many experts to prove their claims. If cases released by the BC Supreme Court today are any guide it is ICBC that is in need of reform when it comes to the practice of hiring physicians hoping to refute collision related injuries.

In three separate cases published today by the BC Supreme Court three separate judges found ICBC hired expert opinions deserved “little weight“.

In the first case (Francello v. Cupskey) the Plaintiff was injured in two collisions. ICBC retained a physician who provided opinion evidence minimizing the Plaintiffs injuries in connection to the crash. In finding this opinion deserved “little weight” Mr. Justice Burnyeat provided the following comments:

$150,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Pain and Somatic Symotom Disorder

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on October 5, 2019. Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Psychological Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court assessing damages for chronic physical and psychological injuries following a vehicle collision.

In the recent case (Verjee v. Dunbrak) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear end collision in 2009 on Vancouver’s Lion’s Gate Bridge. The Defendants admitted fault. She suffered chronic soft tissue injuries and subsequently developed psychological symptoms including depression and a somatic symptom disorder. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $150,000 Madam Justice Marzari provided the following reasons:

BC Court of Appeal Upholds Special Costs Award Against Disability Insurer Despite No Litigation Misconduct

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on September 23, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Court of Appeal finding that trial judges do have authority to award special costs against litigants even in circumstances where no litigation misconduct occurred.

In today’s case (Tanious v. The Empire Life Insurance Company) the Plaintiff was insured with the Defendant. She became disabled and sought long term disability benefits but the Defendant ‘rejected her claim’. The Plaintiff successfully sued and was awarded damages along with an order of special costs.

The Defendant appealed arguing the judge was wrong in awarding special costs absent litigation misconduct. The BC Court of Appeal disagreed and found that in “exceptional cases” such awards could be justified. In upholding the award the court provided the following reasons: