Skip to main content

More on Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 47 Comments on More on Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries

Today reasons for judgment were released by the BC Supreme Court in 2 separate cases dealing with chronic soft tissue injuries.  I summarize these below in my continued effort to grow this public database addressing awards for pain and suffering in ICBC and other BC Injury Claims.
In the first case (Warren-Skuggedal v. Eddy) the Plaintiff was involved in a very serious collision in Prince George, BC.  The defendant was “driving well in excess of the speed limit…(he) lost control and the truck swerved into the lane in which (the Plaintiff) was driving…the force of the impact tore (the defendants) vehicle in half“.
Fault was not at issue, rather, the court dealt solely with the issue of damages.  The Plaintiff unfortunately had some serious pre-existing health issues and Mr. Justice Sewell had to decide “the true extent of Ms. Warren-Skuggedal’s injuries and disabilities and the extent to which they are attributable to the injuries she suffered in the accident. ”
In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $60,000, Mr. Justice Sewell summarized her injuries, their relationship to the collision and their effect on her life as follows:
[19] I conclude that Ms. Warren-Skuggedal suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident which aggravated her pre-existing depression and anxiety.  I find that she genuinely experiences the symptoms she has described although I do think that she does exaggerate and dramatize them to a certain extent….

[23]         I conclude that some of the symptoms Ms. Warren-Skuggedal reports are attributable to the accident but that the more serious ones are attributable to her pre-existing condition.  Specifically I find that the anxiety, depression and cognitive problems she experiences are not caused by the accident.  As I understand the law in this area the onus is on Ms. Warren-Skuggedal to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that her symptoms would not be present but for the negligence of the defendant, which led to the injuries and trauma suffered in the accident.  I do not think that she has met that onus with respect to the difficulties described in this paragraph.  I think it is more likely that she would have continued to suffer from depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties even if she had not been injured in the accident.  The difficulties were part of her original position.

[24]         I must also conclude that Ms. Warren-Skuggedal’s inability to find employment since the accident and any impairment of her capacity to earn income in the future are not attributable to the accident.  While I base this conclusion on the whole of the evidence I note that it is consistent with the opinions expressed by Dr. Reddy and Dr. Hirsch, both of whom concluded that the motor vehicle accident did not negatively affect her employment prospects.

[25]         On the other hand, I do conclude that Ms. Warren-Skuggedal does suffer chronic pain as a result of the defendant’s negligence.  I also find that it is likely that she will continue to suffer from that pain for the foreseeable future.  I also conclude that that pain has resulted in some permanent restriction of Ms. Warren-Skuggedal’s ability to enjoy recreational activities and carry out such household tasks as heavier cleaning and gardening.

This case contains a useful analysis of the Courts role in wading through injuries both related to and unrelated to an accident.  The full judgement is worth reviewing for anyone interested in this area of the law.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The second case released today (Gordon v. Timins) involved a 2005 BC Car Crash.  The Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended by a u-haul truck.  This collision was significant enough to propel the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the vehicle in front of her.
The Plaintiff’s main injury was chronic neck pain.  Mr. Justice Cullen awarded the Plaintiff $45,000 for non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life).  He summarized this lasting injury as follows “In the result Ms. Gordon is left with an injury to her neck that, I find, never fully abates and is aggravated by aspects of her work.  I also find that the plaintiff’s neck pain when aggravated is associated with headaches, some dizziness and impaired sleep patterns with consequential fatigue. ”
In reaching this conclusion the court largely accepted the evidence of Dr. Dhawan, a specialist in physiatry, whose evidence was summarized as follows:

[96]         Dr. Dhawan was a specialist in physiatry or physical medicine.  He testified that the neck has a complicated anatomy with soft and hard tissue structures.  It has ligaments in front and the muscles on top of that.  If the muscles or ligaments are torn, it can lead to instability of the structure.  Dr. Dhawan’s diagnosis of the plaintiff when he saw her on July 18, 2008 was that she had torn muscles and ligaments.  He said that ligaments take longer to heal than muscles because they have less blood supply.  Scar tissue can form and it is not as strong as the original ligament and can stretch or tear more easily and can remain inflamed after forming.  He testified that in the case of a rear-end accident, the usual source of pain is the upper facet joints.  In his report, he reported no boney discogenic or neurological injury, characterizing it as a soft tissue injury.  He noted that the plaintiff “was referred to Kevin Tam … who was able to help her tremendously.”  He noted that she has difficulty in extending her head upwards to prune trees.  He recommended injection therapy – local steroid and anaesthetic injections, 2 – 3 times over a 2 – 3 month period.  He testified that those injections with a stretching and posture control program could resolve the syndrome of soft tissue injury.

[97]         He opined there would be no permanent sequelae like development of arthritis or any need for surgery and no disability from her work as a landscaper/arborist.

[98]         Dr. Dhawan concluded, however, that given the chronicity of her symptoms “some symptoms of neck and shoulder girdle pain may remain on a longer term basis and she will have to learn to live with pain and a quick resolution of symptoms is not likely.”…

[100]     Dr. Dhawan noted that although the degenerative changes are unrelated to the motor vehicle accident, “…individuals who have such changes in the neck do not respond well through treatment and have more prolonged symptoms after soft tissue injuries and symptoms of neck pain may persist for several years and may become chronic.”

[101]     Dr. Dhawan noted in Appendix 3 to his July 18, 2008 report that the plaintiff’s neck extension was only 25% of normal without pain.  He concluded that that was an objective symptom and consistent with his diagnosis.

$35,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Aggravation of Pre-Existing Back Injury

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released Friday awarding a Plaintiff just over $69,000 in total damages for injuries and losses sustained as a result of a 2006 BC Car Crash.
In Friday’s case (Dermody v. Gassier) the Plaintiff was injured when his vehicle was rear-ended in South Surrey.  Fault was admitted leaving the court to deal with the sole issue of damages (value of the claim).
Mr. Justice Williams found that while the Plaintiff “embellished his description of the way things were before the accident” the Plaintiff nonetheless was injured and had a pre-existing condition worsened as a consequence of this collision.
In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $35,000  Mr. Justice Williams summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

[92] The plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries in the motor vehicle accident.  Some of them were relatively transitory in nature; others were more serious and he says they have continued to impact him in a significant way.

[93] The bruising and such injury abated within a short period of time, that is, within two or three weeks.  The headaches continued, albeit on a diminished basis, for a period of time in the order of 12 months.  The neck pain was initially a serious problem but I conclude resolved substantially within 12 to 16 months.  The driving apprehension, again, resolved within a fairly short period of time and did not meaningfully impact in any long-term way upon the plaintiff.

[94] There is the matter of the sensation loss in the plaintiff’s feet.  None of the medical experts have been able to understand what causes that, and Dr. Sovio was quite sceptical of it.  Nevertheless, there appears to be no reason to find that it is not an actual condition; its onset was concurrent with the accident.  I, therefore, find that it is a consequence, albeit a relatively minor one, of the incident and that it is a continuing condition.

[95] The most serious and sustained injury was that to the plaintiff’s back.  I accept that it caused him significant pain and discomfort.  Based on the medical evidence, I accept as well that there will be some residual back pain going forward….

[103] To clarify, I find that, at the time of the motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff’s back condition was not asymptomatic.  He was having back pain with certain attendant limitations.  Whether that was from the incidents at the courier job, whether it was because of degenerative conditions, or whether it was some combination, I am not able to say.

[104] However, I am satisfied that his back was symptomatic at the time of the accident, and, in accordance with the crumbling skull principle, he is only entitled to recover damages that reflect the difference between his post-accident condition and his pre-accident condition….

I conclude that there were weaknesses in this plaintiff’s pre-accident condition that were not symptomatic at the time of the accident injury, but which would have the effect of making the plaintiff likely to experience greater consequences from the insult of the accident.  Injuries that result where such a situation is present are compensable…

[115] On the particular facts of the matter at hand, it is my conclusion that a fit and appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages in this case is $35,000.

In addition to the discussion addressing the award for non-pecuniary damages, this case contains a useful discussion of the “thin skull” and “crumbling skull” legal principles which is worth reviewing for anyone interested in how BC courts deal with pre-existing conditions and their interplay with traumatic injuries in BC tort claims.

More from BC Supreme Court on LVI Crashes, Net Past Income Loss Awards

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Wage Loss, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.

(Note: the case discussed in this post was overturned by the BCCA addressing the issue of tax consequences in ICBC past income loss awards.)
In reasons for judgement published today by the BC Supreme Court (Laxdal v. Robbins) Madam Justice Gerow discussed two interesting issues that often come up in ICBC Claims.
The first is the “LVI Defence“.  In today’s case the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 car crash in Nanaimo, BC.  This collision appears to fit ICBC’s LVI criteria in that the Plaintiff’ vehicle suffered minimal damage and this was stressed by the defence at trial.  In finding that the Plaintiff indeed suffered injury in this crash despite the rather insignificant amount of vehicle damage Madam Justice Gerow had this very practical take on the evidence presented:

[17] Although the severity of the accident is a factor that should be taken into consideration when determining whether Ms. Laxdal suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accident and the extent of those injuries, it is not determinative of either issue. Rather, the whole of the evidence must be considered in determining those issues.

[18] In this case, the uncontradicted evidence of both Ms. Laxdal and Dr. Roy, her family doctor, is that Ms. Laxdal suffered a soft tissue injury in the accident. As a result, I have concluded that Ms. Laxdal’s injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident of September 11, 2006.

The court went on to award $15,000 for the Plaintiff’s pain and suffering for “mild to moderate soft tissue injury in her neck and back with some pain radiating into her shoulders.  Her injuries had mostly recovered…approximately 8.5 months after the accident, and it is unlikely that there will be any significant residual symptoms as a result of the accident“.

The second issue dealt with by the court worth noting was the award for past loss of income and the proper calculation of “net income loss”.

There is a debate amongst lawyers in the Personal Injury Bar with respect to the proper calculation of “net income loss” when the amount of past wage loss in a BC Vehicle Crash tort claim for any given year is so small that the figure would be tax exempt but when added up with the other income earned by the Plaintiff the gross figure would be taxable.  The answer to this question is important as it effects the amount that can be awarded for past wage loss in a BC Car Crash tort claim due to s. 98 of the Insurnance (Vehicle) Act.

In today’s case, Madam Justice Gerow decided as follows:

“In my view, the authorities support the conclusion that where the gross award is at or below the amount exempt from taxation, there would be no tax payable so that the net past income loss would be the same as the gross past income loss….Accordingly there will be no deduction for income tax as the amount of past wage loss is below the personal exemption.”

This is a great result for BC Plaintiff’s injured in car crashes who suffer a modest past wage loss as it permits the gross amount to be recovered so long as the award fall below the personal income tax exemption for any given calendar year.  I imagine ICBC is not as pleased as Plaintiffs are with this interpretation and perhaps this issue will go up to the Court of Appeal for consideration.  If it does I will be sure to write about the result.

More ICBC Injury Claims Updates – The Kelowna Road Edition

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Spine Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 57 Comments on More ICBC Injury Claims Updates – The Kelowna Road Edition

I’m just finishing up another business trip to Kelowna BC and have been greeted by a heavy load of ICBC Injury Claims judgments released by the BC Supreme Court.  Given this volume (and being pressed for time working on the road) this Injury Claims update will be shorter on detail than usual.
4 cases worth noting were released today by the BC Supreme Court.  The first deals with the issue of fault and the others deal with damages (value of the the claims).
In the first case released today (Hynna v. Peck) the Plaintiff was injured in a car accident.  She was attempting to cross 10th Avenue, in Vancouver, BC when she was struck by a westbound vehicle near her driver’s side door.
The Plaintiff had a stop sign and was the ‘servient driver’.  The court found that the Plaintiff was careless when she left the stop sign as she tried to cross the intersection when it was not safe to do so.    Specifically the court found that the Plaintiff entered the intersection when the dominant on-coming driver posed an immediate hazard and the Plaintiff “either did not see him or saw him but failed to reasonably appreciate the threat of his approach”
The court also found that the Defendant was speeding.  The court concluded that he was at fault for this and in doing so made the following finding and analysis:

[84] I have found that Mr. Peck was speeding along West 10th at between 83.5 and 86 km/h as he approached the Intersection.  He was moving at that rapid pace when he first noticed the Hynna car stopped on Camosun Street.  The evidence demonstrates that but for Mr. Peck’s excessive speed of travel, he would have been able to take reasonable measures to avoid the accident and the accident would not then have occurred.  I also find fault with Mr. Peck for failing to keep a proper look-out.  He could not have maintained a proper look-out as he sped toward Ms. Hynna after taking the momentary second glance her way.  That is why he did not see her pull into the Intersection when he was 62 to 65 metres away.  The skid mark evidence, as interpreted by Mr. Brown, together with the testimony of Mr. Dales, establishes on balance that Mr. Peck was significantly closer to the Intersection when he finally noticed and reacted to Ms. Hynna coming into his path and slammed on his brakes.  To Mr. Peck’s mind, Ms. Hynna had suddenly appeared in front of him.  Yet the evidence shows that was not the case: she did not dart out in front of him at the last minute at a rapid rate of acceleration.  The accident here was not tantamount to a head-on collision as in Cooper.

[85] In Mr. Brown’s opinion, had Mr. Peck been doing the speed limit he could have braked to a stop in about 11.9 to 13.1 metres.  Adjusting for my finding that Mr. Peck was closer to the area of impact when Ms. Hynna entered into the Intersection than the distance estimated by Mr. Brown, I still find that, had he not been speeding and had been maintaining a proper look-out, he could have stopped in plenty of time to permit Ms. Hynna to complete her manoeuvre without mishap.

[86] I conclude that the conduct of each Mr. Peck and Ms. Hynna was negligent and combined to cause the accident.

Madam Justice Ballance apportioned 60% of the blame for this accident on the Defendant and 40% on the Plaintiff.  This case is worth reviewing in full for the court’s discussion of the law in these types of accidents.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The second case released today by the BC Supreme Court (Lakhani v. Elliott) the issue of fault was admitted and the court had to deal with the quantum of damages.
In this case the Plaintiff was injured in a 2005 BC Car Crash.   In awarding just over $105,000 in total damages Mr. Justice Voith summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries and their effect on her life as follows:
88] In my view it is clear that Mrs. Lakhani did suffer from a series of injuries as a result of the Accident. Except for her lower back and left leg, she had never suffered from any of these difficulties prior to the Accident. There is no disagreement between the experts on the issue of causation in relation to these various injuries. While Mrs. Lakhani had experienced symptoms in her lower back and left leg these symptoms were temporarily aggravated as a result of the Accident….

[91] I find that a number of Mrs. Lakhani’s symptoms were fully resolved within one to six months of the Accident. Others have persisted, albeit it to differing degrees, to this date. While I do not accept that these symptoms have consistently been as severe as Mrs. Lakhani indicated, I do accept that they have caused her some pain and discomfort. A number of persons, including a former housekeeper, Ms. Kar, and Mrs. Lakhani’s co-worker Ms. Cousins, have given evidence about her present condition. These witnesses indicated that they have observed Mrs. Lakhani struggling with various tasks. Her husband also gave evidence about Mrs. Lakhani’s post-Accident condition. While his evidence (as with so much of the plaintiff’s case) seem to focus on Mrs. Lakhani’s limitations without any or adequate recognition about her pre-Accident condition, I do accept that the injuries associated with the Accident have increased Mrs. Lakhani’s difficulties. For example, I accept that she had headaches when she studied. I accept that sitting at a computer caused her additional difficulties. I accept that her exercise regime in the gym has changed somewhat so that she no longer exercises with light weights as she once did. I accept that she is required to ensure her workstations are properly set up to minimize difficulties with her neck and shoulder. I also accept that the difficulties Mrs. Lakhani has had in her neck, shoulder and upper back limits her ability to cope with her low back injury. A number of professional witnesses indicated that persons who have low back injuries can often adapt by undertaking more functions or tasks with their upper back and shoulders. In the case of Mrs. Lakhani, the ability to alleviate the strain or load on her low back in this manner has been obviated.

[92] It is also clear that Mrs. Lakhani has consistently sought different types of treatment to assist with her post-Accident condition. For a few months immediately after the Accident she obtained physiotherapy and massage treatments. In about April 2006 she began to see Dr. Khan regularly; she presently sees him every third week or so. Since December 2008 she has been getting cranial massage treatments. All of this is consistent with Mrs. Lakhani continuing to suffer with some of the after effects of the Accident.

[93] Mrs. Lakhani formerly enjoyed needlepoint and would periodically paint small ornaments, particularly at Christmas. She says she no longer enjoys these activities because they cause her some neck pain. I accept this evidence.

[94] As mentioned above, Mrs. Lakhani is a very avid gardener. She says the Accident has inhibited her ability to engage in this activity. I will return to this later when I deal with issues related to the cost of future care, but I find that Mrs. Lakhani’s present ability to garden is largely unchanged from that which she enjoyed prior to the Accident.

[95] I have said that Mrs. Lakhani described the sadness she felt in not being able to play with her daughter as she had hoped. I have no doubt that such limitations are very disheartening, but as I have indicated, I find that many of these limitations are a function of her pre-Accident condition. Apart from examples I have already given, Mrs. Lakhani described her inability to help her daughter learn to ride a bicycle. Such an activity, which requires running, bending and strength to balance the bicycle, would have all been extremely difficult for Mrs. Lakhani before the Accident. There are, however, some activities, such as carrying her child when she was an infant, which were likely rendered more difficult and painful as a result of the Accident.

[96] Mrs. Lakhani was a very avid reader prior to the Accident. She said she would often read for over an hour before she went to sleep. At present, she rarely reads more than 15 to 20 minutes. I accept that some of this is likely referable to the Accident. Much of it, however, seems to reflect another significant difficulty with the plaintiff’s case. I have described how carefully Mrs. Lakhani was required to balance her various commitments with her leisure time in order to protect her lower back. This leisure time was necessary to enable her to recuperate from various daily demands. Yet the fact is that Mrs. Lakhani has continued to add obligations and activities to her day-to-day life subsequent to the Accident.

Damages were awarded as follows:

Non-Pecuaniary Damages:   $45,000

Income Loss:  $8,771.97

Future Loss of Opportunity:  $30,000

Special Damages:  $12,045.96

Cost of Future Care:  $5,500

Loss of Houskeeeping Capacity:  $3,721

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The next case dealing with damages (Lidher v. Toews) involved a 2004 BC collision.

The Plaintiff testified that she suffered injuries affecting “her neck, shoulders, arms, back and head.“.   Madam Justice Smith found that the Plaintiff indeed was injured in this collision and awarded total damages just above $76,000 then reduced these by 10% for the Plaintiff’s ‘failure to mitigate‘.  Specifically the court found that the Plaintiff “did not do what she could reasonably have been expected to do  to keep herself from becoming deconditioned, and that some reduction of her award for failure to mitigate would be appropriate“

In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $30,000 the court made the following key findings:

[78] I have concluded that the plaintiff has reacted more significantly to her injuries than someone else might have, and, in addition, that she has exaggerated her symptoms.  I note that the stresses and difficulties in her life may have made her more susceptible to pain, and may explain her reaction to her injuries.  I also take into account that she is not a sophisticated or highly educated woman, and that her communications with health care providers have often been through interpreters, except where the health care provider is Punjabi-speaking (Dr. Khunkhun and Dr. Johal are able to speak Punjabi).  There may well have been miscommunication as a result.

[79] The weight of the evidence satisfies me that the motor vehicle accident caused Ms. Lidher to experience pain and other symptoms from December 11, 2004 to the present.  Her symptoms may have been exacerbated by family stress, but to the extent that the family stress has caused her to experience the injuries more significantly than she otherwise would, it is an example of the principle that the defendant must take the plaintiff as she is found.  It is possible that family stress would have caused her to miss some work in any event, but I do not find this to be more than a slight possibility.

[80] The evidence as to whether Ms. Lidher will experience a full recovery is unclear.  However, both Dr. Hershler and Dr. Khunkhun expressed some optimism, particularly given the good results obtained by the Karp Rehabilitation program in 2008.

[81] On the balance of probabilities, I find that the plaintiff will likely experience further recovery, to the point that her symptoms will be minimal.  Her symptoms are already at a modest level.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the final personal injury case released today by the BC Supreme Court (Sanders v. Janze) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2002 car crash in Richmond, BC.  Fault was admitted and the trial focussed solely on quantum of damages.

The Plaintiff had suffered other injuries in the years before this collision and was still recovering from these at the time of this accident.

Mr. Justice Butler found that the Plaintiff suffered a neck injury and a back injury in this collision.  With respect to the neck he found as follows:

[67] The pre-existing degenerative changes in Ms. Sanders’ cervical spine made her more susceptible to injury.  She was still experiencing some pain and discomfort in her neck from the 2002 injuries, but it had improved and was not disabling.  The Accident aggravated the existing condition of her spine.  The nature and extent of her symptoms changed.  The pain and inability to function that she experienced after the Accident persisted and ultimately led to surgery in 2004.

[68] Dr. Connell’s evidence that there was no structural change in the cervical spine before and after the Accident based on the diagnostic imaging does not negate the opinion of Drs. Matishak and Watt that the Accident was an effective cause of the neck injuries that led to the surgery in 2004.  I accept Dr. Matishak’s opinion as the treating surgeon.  He was adamant that the Accident was a cause of the significant problems that Ms. Sanders experienced in her neck.  He was cross-examined extensively on the issue.  He did not waiver in his view.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s back injury the court found as follows:

[72] I have already found that Ms. Sanders’ low back was not symptomatic before the Accident.  She had experienced back pain from time to time since 1993, but after 1999 the low back was quiescent.  She worked at physically demanding jobs without experiencing low back pain.  In other words, a careful examination of Ms. Sanders’ pre-Accident condition establishes that Dr. Matishak’s assumption that her back condition was quiescent is correct….

[75] There can be no question that the Accident did cause Ms. Sanders’ back to become symptomatic.  She continued to experience pain from the date of the Accident onwards.  However, Mr. Janze also argues that Ms. Sanders’ absence of impairment on the SLR test in the months immediately after the Accident is objective evidence to show that the Accident did not affect her low back spinal structure.  Drs. Watt and Matishak were cross-examined on this issue.  Both maintained that this fact did not cause them to alter their opinions.  They both noted that there were symptoms of radiating leg pain shortly after the Accident.  Approximately six months after the Accident, Ms. Sanders’ SLR test revealed impairment on the right side….

[77] There is no other possible event or cause that could explain the development of the symptomology in this case.  The fact that the surgeries did not take place until 2007 does not mean that the Accident was not a cause of the injuries that ultimately led to those surgeries.  I have found that the symptoms and back pain were caused by the Accident.  Those symptoms persisted and became chronic.  The conservative treatment attempted did not provide relief.  Consequently, Ms. Sanders chose surgery.  The fact that three surgeries were required was a direct result of the condition of her spine after the Accident.  In summary, when the temporal connection is examined closely, it does establish that the Accident was a cause of the low back pain.

The court assessed the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $150,000 but then reduced this award by 40% t “to take into account the measureable risk that Ms. Sanders’ pre-existing conditions of her spine would have detrimentally impacted Ms. Sanders in any event of the Accident”

This case is worth reviewing in full for anyone interested in the law in BC relating to “pre-existing conditions” and the “crumbling skull” defence which is often raised in ICBC Injury Claims.

Whew…Now to catch my plane.

ICBC Injury Claims and Credibility

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Prince George Registry, dealing extensively with Plaintiff credibility in ICBC Injury Claims.
In today’s case (Willing v. Ayles) 2 Plaintiffs were involved in a 2005 crash that was described as a ‘significant rear end collision causing some significant physical damage to the vehicle occupied by the plaintiffs‘
The court found that both Plaintiffs sustained injuries and non-pecuniary damages of $20,000 and $35,000 were made for various soft tissue injuries.
The lion’s share of this 43 page judgement focuses on the Plaintiff’s credibility.  I reproduce some highlights of the courts discussion on this topic below.   Anyone interested in seeing how BC Courts deal with Plaintiff credibility in ICBC injury claims in encouraged to read this judgment in full:
[75] For reasons which will become apparent these statements are demonstrably inaccurate and untrue.  Of more concern, they appear to be repeated consistently to create a particular impression, namely that she was far more active before the accident and that her injuries had restricted her activities and resulted in a major weight gain…

[153] I am satisfied that both Dr. Haskins and Dr. McKenzie suffered in the preparation of their reports and opinions from information that was, at best, exaggerated and inaccurate.

[154] This factor alone diminishes the value of their reports and opinions but when it is combined with the absence of evidence from either family doctor the difficulties become even greater.

[155] Ms. Willing struggled to fill the void created by the absence of her family doctor by repeatedly offering her own opinions on a wide variety of topics ranging from the reason for notes found in Dr. Scott’s clinical records to the cause of her weight gain after the accident.  These opinions, though revealing, are of extremely limited evidentiary value and do not supplement the actual medical evidence before the court.

[156] In the absence of medical evidence based on a proper foundation I am not prepared to accept Ms. Willing’s opinions as to causation.  To be clear, I am satisfied that, above all, Ms. Willing demonstrated a remarkable capacity to blame the collision in question for virtually everything which crossed her path.  This included attributing her weight gain to the accident, her move to Smithers, and complaints of headaches with orgasm which appears to have surfaced on March 21, 2007, approaching two years post-accident, and that of lower back and hip pain after sex which appears to have been reported to Dr. Haskins on February 11, 2008.

[157] This penchant for exaggeration and attribution appears to have been passed on to her husband who, at least in the reports of Dr. Haskins, attributes the change from his job as a mechanic to a salesman to the after effects of his injuries.

[158] Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the evidence in this case arises again in the reports and the opinion of Dr. McKenzie about the plaintiff, Kristina Willing.

[159] This report is replete with qualifications which make it clear that Dr. McKenzie’s opinion that her reported complaints were caused by the collision in question were based on the fact that she had recovered completely from previous injuries and she was asymptomatic from the degenerative disc condition prior to the accident.

[160] Those qualifications include the following –

(a)      For approximately 10 years following her last pregnancy however she had no significant back pain;

(b)      She was involved in a previous motor vehicle accident with some neck and right shoulder pain.  By her history the neck pain completely resolved although she had some mild residual shoulder pain;

(c)      The degenerative disc disease almost assuredly pre-existed but was minimally or completely asymptomatic.

[161] It seems clear that Dr. McKenzie’s opinion as to causation, even couched as it is on the various contributing factors, is based on his acceptance of her evidence of her health and condition prior to the accident.

[162] Clinical records produced apparently from the Glover Physiotherapist Corporation (Exhibit 3, Tab 10) contain an intake form dated April 9, 2002.  The symptoms recorded include neck problems, headache and problems with her right shoulder area.  After the initial assessment Ms. Willing is recorded as attending for three treatments – April 16, 2002; April 18, 2002; and April 25, 2002, before apparently discontinuing physiotherapy.

[163] A second intake form on February 17, 2004 references an “old mva” and contains a similar pain diagram to that found in the earlier intake form.  This assessment goes on to record constant pain and a series of difficulties mainly centred on her right shoulder.

[164] On this occasion Ms. Willing apparently attended four physiotherapy treatments over a period of some 16 days from February 21, 2004 to March 9, 2004 before discontinuing her attendances.

[165] During the course of her evidence Ms. Willing was insistent that she recovered completely from these symptoms and that they had completely resolved after March 9, 2004.

[166] Coincidently her claim arising from the 2002 motor vehicle collision was settled on February 27, 2004.

[167] The third intake form is dated August 19, 2005 and follows the present collision.  The pain diagram in this case covers a somewhat larger area of the neck and upper back and includes the lower back.

[168] On this occasion Ms. Willing apparently attended on some 26 occasions from August 29, 2005 until April 7, 2006 before apparently discontinuing the treatments.

[169] Upon arriving in Smithers Ms. Willing began attending at the Bulkley Valley Chiropractic Clinic.  These attendances began on August 9, 2006 and concluded on October 18, 2006 after some 16 visits which apparently included two acupuncture sessions.

[170] On July 27, 2007 Alpine Physiotherapy in Smithers completed an initial assessment form which records, amongst other information, that she had just returned from a trip to France.

[171] The physiotherapist, Graham Pollard, notes in a letter dated July 14, 2008 that he has treated her on five occasions since her initial assessment.

[172] What is interesting about this entire sequence of events in Smithers, I hesitate to describe it as a pattern, is the gaps in what she now claims are necessary therapy treatments.

[173] When Mr. Pollard refers to five treatments after her initial assessment he is not speaking about the July 27, 2007 initial assessment, because after that assessment she did not attend a single physiotherapy treatment until she returned for another initial assessment on June 3, 2008, some eleven months later.

[174] Dealing initially with the initial assessment on July 27, 2007, this appointment took place immediately after the plaintiffs retained counsel to pursue the present claims.  The writs were prepared and signed on July 25, 2007, and they were filed and these actions commenced on July 26, 2007.  The next day she attended Alpine Physiotherapy.

[175] On June 3, 2008 she returned, was assessed and began a series of five treatments.  This followed her attendance at her examination for discovery some weeks before.

[176] Once again I am forced to conclude that this is not a pattern that supports the recital of symptoms and problems presented by Ms. Willing in her evidence.

[177] The adverse credibility findings in this case go to the heart of the factual underpinnings of Dr. McKenzie’s opinion.

[178] The absence of evidence from Dr. Scott and, indeed, from the time of the accident until Ms. Willing first saw Dr. Haskins leaves the court without any medical assessment from the time of the accident until nearly two years later.  More importantly, it leaves the court without any evidence from her doctor concerning the extent of her recovery at the time of the present accident.

[179] There is, in the body of evidence before the court, little in the way of objective evidence let alone convincing evidence of any significant injury.

[180] A medical/legal report or evidence from Dr. Scott may have provided a clearer picture and the basis for a factual finding of continuing pain and discomfort related to the accident; but we do not have the benefit of any such evidence.

[181] A decision must not be based on speculation, supposition or facts not placed in evidence.  While this may possibly result in Kristina Willing being under-compensated she has only herself to blame.

[182] The absence of evidence from Dr. Scott in this case fulfills the circumstances necessary for the drawing of an adverse inference.  The inference in this case is, that if his evidence had been called, Dr. Scott’s evidence would not have supported the ‘complete recovery’ scenario found in Ms. Willing’s evidence and on which, to a significant extent, Dr. McKenzie’s opinion is based.

$75,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages Awarded For Chronic Pain and Headaches

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 45 Comments on $75,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages Awarded For Chronic Pain and Headaches

Reasons for judgement were released today (Testa v. Mallison) by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, awarding a Plaintiff damages for injuries and losses suffered as a result of a 2004 BC Car Crash.
The Plaintiff’s vehicle was rear-ended while stopped in traffic.  The issue of fault was admitted leaving the court to deal with the issue of quantum of damages (value of the Plaintiff’s claim).  The Plaintiff suffered injuries to her low back, her neck, shoulders, chest and headaches.
Some of the Plaintiff’s injuries fully resolved, others did not.  By the time of trial the Plaintiff complained of the following ongoing problems “constant pain in her neck from the base of her skull up and down the neck to her shoulders and radiating into her head and temple area.  The pain is lowest first thing in the morning but builds up by afternoon and can get quite severe.  She experiences crying from the pain while in her car driving home.  She can’t stand even the sound of having the radio on.  Her sleep is most often disturbed and intermittent.”
In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $75,000, Mr. Justice Holmes accepted the following evidence:

[48] I accept Dr. O’Connor’s opinion that the 2004 motor vehicle accident caused the plaintiff:

1.       aggravation of a pre-existing neck condition and aggravation and worsening of her existing cervical spondylosis.

2.       cervicogenic headaches, with a migrainous component, and most likely triggered by neck pain.

3.       low mood, deconditioning and sleep disturbance.

[49] Dr. O’Connor’s prognosis is that the plaintiff’s ability to function is primarily determined by her ability to cope with her chronic pain.  That pain level has remained constant over a 2 to 3 year period and she rates it as severe.  Dr. O’Connor is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s pain symptoms are going to persist indefinitely.

[50] Treatment options are very limited.  Exercise with emphasis on core conditioning is paramount. A regime of pain and sleep medication is needed.

[51]         Dr. Shuckett examined the plaintiff September 10, 2008 and as with Dr. O’Conner was provided with comprehensive historic health care provider records of the plaintiff’s treatment for neck, shoulder, back and hip pain and headaches.  Dr. Shuckett’s diagnoses of injury in the 2004 accident are:

1.               cerviogenic headaches with migraine features

2.               whiplash injury of the neck mainly left sided neck pain but also with painfull trigger points

3. myofacial pain syndrome of neck and shoulder girdle region with painful trigger points.

[52] Dr. Shuckett considered causation and concluded at page 11 of her report:

Thus, I believe that her current pain in the neck and shoulder girdles and her headaches are predisposed to by her pre-existing history, but it sounds to me like this pre-existing history was not that significant in the three years before the subject motor vehicle accident of March 23, 2004.  She had mainly left hip girdle pain before the subject motor vehicle accident.

[53]         Dr. Shuckett’s opinion is that the plaintiff “…will be dealing with her symptoms in the long term future.

[54]         I prefer the opinions of Drs. Deernsted, O’Connor and Shuckett to that of Dr. Sauvio in regard to the plaintiff’s March 23, 2004 related injuries, their causation and consequence.

[55]         Dr. Deernsted and Dr. O’Connor have a significant advantage of treating the plaintiff over time.  Dr. O’Connor and Dr. Shuckett concluded a careful review of historic medical clinical records and specifically considered causation issues.

[56]         The plaintiff’s neck and shoulder pain and headaches prior to the March 23, 2004 accident were mainly related to her hip problem that occurred in 2001.  The neck and shoulder pain and headaches by the time of the 2004 accident were much diminished.  They had become only intermittent but she was left more susceptible to injury by subsequent trauma.

[57] The accident of March 23, 2004 aggravated those diminished but active symptoms as well as triggering some that were asymptomatic.  The combined injuries to the shoulder and neck are now very severe in their effect and likely permanent.

[58] The plaintiff’s low mood is a consequence of the injuries and their duration.  The plaintiff had a history of migraine headache experience but hey were generally stress related.  The constant migraine type headache she presently experiences is a consequence of her present injuries and triggered by her neck and shoulder pain.

GENERAL DAMAGES

[59]         The plaintiff’s life has been severely impacted by the result of her injuries sustained in the March 23, 2004 accident.  She has constant pain and headaches and suffers from sleep disturbance and altered mood.  She has experienced a substantial quality decline in her ability to work and in both her leisure and social life activities.

[60] The plaintiff is a motivated lady who will persist in using her long standing fitness and running activity to assist in controlling her chronic pain condition.  Unfortunately at most she may only be able to reduce her pain levels to more tolerable or manageable levels and is unlikely to enjoy a full recovery.

[61] I award general damages of $75,000.

BC Supreme Court Calls LVI Defence a "Myth"

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today dealing with a Low Velocity Impact (LVI).  ICBC, like many insurance companies, has set up a policy with respect to handling LVI Claims by denying that the Plaintiff could have sustained injuries where little vehicle damage occurred.
BC Courts have time and time again rejected such a position and in reasons for judgement released today by Mr. Justice Macaulay of the BC Supreme Court called out the LVI defence as a ‘myth’.
In today’s case (Thomas v.  Wormsley) The Plaintiff suffered mild to moderate soft tissue injuries in 2 rear-end car crashes.  The court awarded total damages of just over $30,000 for the Plaintiff’s injuries and losses.  In doing so, Mr. Justice Macaulay used the following strong language when referring to the defence often used by ICBC in response to Low Velocity Impacts:

[1] The plaintiff, Ms. Thomas, claims damages for injuries and losses caused by two car accidents, the first on October 3, 2005, and the second on October 13, 2007. According to Ms. Thomas, she suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and low back areas in each accident and was not fully recovered from the first accident at the time of the second.

[2] In each case, Ms. Thomas was at the wheel of her car in a stopped position when she was hit from behind by another vehicle. Both collisions occurred at minimal speeds. There was no damage to Ms. Thomas’ car in the first collision and minimal damage in the second. Nonetheless, as I and other judges have stated before, it is a myth to suggest that low impact correlates directly with lack of compensable injury: Lubick v. Mei, 2008 BCSC 555, at para. 5 and Jezdic v. Danielisz, 2008 BCSC 1863, at paras. 30 and 33.

[3] Persistent pain and discomfort may result from soft tissue injuries in such circumstances. Each case depends, of course, on the particular facts. There may be no injury in spite of a very severe impact or persistent injury after a minimal impact. While common sense suggests that one is less likely to be severely injured in a minimal impact collision, the real question is whether the injured party proved the injuries alleged to be caused by the collision on a balance of probabilities.

The Important Role of Treating Doctors in BC Personal Injury Claims

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC Shoulder Injury Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court highlighting the valuable role treating physicians have in personal injury claims.
In today’s case (Deiter v. Briggs) the Plaintiff was injured in 2 BC car crashes.  Liability was admitted for both crashes leaving the court to deal with the issue of quantum of damages (value of the Plaintiff’s injuries and losses).
The Plaintiff called 2 physicians in the course of her claim to assist the court with opinion evidence explaining the extent and nature of her injuries.   These physicians were her family doctor (Dr. Cordoni) and a well respected rheumatologist, Dr. Shuckett.   Dr. Shuckett gave the following diagnosis and prognosis for the Plaintiff’s injuries:

[21]         Dr. Shuckett examined Ms. Deiter in December 2008.  Based on the patient’s own description of her history and Dr. Shuckett’s physical examination of her, Dr. Shuckett arrived at the following diagnosis as set out in her report:

1.               Cervicogenic headaches.

2.               Mechanical neck pain, mainly due to musculo-ligamentous injury with bilateral neck pain and some modest decrease of neck mobility.  She may very well have zygapophyseal joint capsular injury of the neck.

3a.     Myofascial pain syndrome of the left neck and shoulder girdle region with palpable muscle spasm.

3b.     Myofascial pain syndrome of right shoulder girdle region with palpable muscle spasm.

There is some myofascial pain syndrome with spasm of the muscle and rounding of the muscle adjacent to the right medial scapula.

3.               Right shoulder impingement and rotator cuff tendonitis suspected (appears to be mild).

[22]         Dr. Shuckett gave the opinion that the symptoms suffered by the plaintiff were related to the first accident and but for the accident, Ms. Deiter would not have these symptoms or diagnoses.  As to the future prognosis, Dr. Shuckett reported that the prospect of further recovery is guarded now that two and a half years have passed since the accident.  Dr. Shuckett gave the opinion that:

It is really not possible to measure degree of disability or impairment from work in an objective sense with chronic soft tissue pain.  I cannot rule out that she may find herself unable to pursue fulltime work in the longer term future due to her injuries, but this is not something I can predict.  However, based on her current status, it appears that she finds it difficult to contemplate increasing her work hours.

And further:

She may not improve from her current status as her pain is chronic by this time.

The Court largely accepted this evidence and awarded damages of just over $144,000 for the Plaintiff’s injuries and losses.

The Lawyer for the Defendants made critical comments about Dr. Shuckett’s expert opinion.  In rejecting the defence lawyers submissions Madame Justice Griffin said the following with respect to the important role treating physicians play in BC Personal Injury Lawsuits:

[28]         The defendants suggested in argument that Dr. Shuckett was an advocate but I do not accept that characterization.  I found her to be very clear and objective in her evidence which she was well qualified to give.  I pause here to note that the defendants appeared to me to show a lack of objectivity when assessing the role of physicians in litigation of this nature.  The defendants stated in written and oral argument:

In contrast to Dr. Shuckett, Dr. Cordoni presented as a [sic] impartial and unbiased physician which is highly unusual for a general practitioner.

[29]         This submission is what is known as a back?handed compliment.  It is a gratuitous attack on Dr. Shuckett to suggest that she was not impartial, a proposition which is entirely unfair on the evidence.  It is a suggestion that appears to praise Dr. Cordoni while it insults general physicians as a group, as if to say they are typically not able to provide independent medical evidence in soft tissue injury cases.  This cynical submission is outrageous and unduly partisan.

[30]         This court hears many cases involving plaintiffs with claims that someone else’s negligent action caused them personal injuries.  These are persons who are entitled to damages under the common law of this country if their claims are proven.  These are persons who may be suffering greatly from their injuries.  This court could not perform its function of determining these important claims without the help of treating medical physicians including general practitioners.

[31]         Thus, physicians who do testify despite the inconvenience are performing a very important professional and public duty.  Coming to court to testify and to face cross?examination may be the last thing a busy physician wants to do, faced with the burdens of practice.  Often a general physician is the one physician who knows the patient best and who will have the longest history of treating the plaintiff before and after the incident giving rise to the claim.  This court is extremely appreciative of the role physicians play in giving evidence.  I sincerely hope that counsel for the defendants in this case reflected only his views, and not a general culture amongst legal counsel who represent defendants or defendant’s insurers, when he decided to advance his submission which was so disrespectful of the important role of family doctors in personal injury cases.  It is true that in some cases a medical practitioner may be impartial but it reflects poorly on the defendants to simply advance this as a general proposition.

ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Claims Round-up

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized.

On Friday the  BC Supreme Court released reasons for judgement in 2 cases dealing with soft tissue injuries which I summarize below to continue to grow this free database of ICBC Injury Claims Judgements. Additionally, both of these cases contain a useful analysis of Plaintiff credibiilty and are worth reviewing for anyone interested in this area of the law.
In the first case, Skusek v. Gill, the Plaintiff was injured in 2 BC car crashes, the first in 2000 and the second in 2006.  Liability was admitted in both cases leaving the court to deal with quantum of damages (the value of the plaintiffs injuries and losses).
The Plaintiff was 22 years old by the time of trial.  She suffered various soft tissue injuries in both collisions which did not fully resolve.  Mr. Justice McEwan of the BC Supreme Court largely accepted the evidence of Dr. Ames who summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

[20] The plaintiff saw Dr. Janet Ames on August 22, 2007.  Dr. Ames took a history which suggested significant ongoing pain from the first accident which was seriously aggravated by the second:

After the first accident on January 12, 2000 the symptoms included headaches, neck pain, lower back pain, pain between the shoulder blades and bilateral hip pain.  She commented her entire back hurts.  At the time of the second accident she was still going for chiropractor treatment and physiotherapy.  The patient would place her recovery at about 50 percent before the second accident.

After the second accident the patient describes becoming a lot worse in all of the previously symptomatic areas and specifically the right hip became worse.  There were bruises from the seat belt.  The left anterior ribs felt “out of place” (later resolved with chiropractor care).

[21] She note the following symptoms on her examination:

1. There is pain across the low back, left greater the right.  The pain does not consistently radiate down the legs.  There is occasional pain down both anterior thighs not going past mid thigh.  There is no tingling or numbness associated with this.  There is no history of bowel or bladder control problems.  The patient describes pain in the area of the right hip and points to the lateral aspect of the hip.

2. There is pain in the mid back area, left worse than right.  This does not radiate around the chest or through to the front.  There is no history of tingling or numbness.

3. There is a history of headaches described as frontal, temporal and from neck tension.  The frequency and severity varies.  There is no pain down the arms and no tingling or numbness.  Caffeine intake is 1 c. of coffee or tea every two or three weeks and chocolate about twice a week.  The patient will be seeing a Neurologist in February 2009, arranged by Harris Johnsen.

4. The patient comments that she has a lot of stomach aches daily.

5. Sleep varies depending on the pain level.

[22] The prognosis was as follows:

The prognosis for the various injuries is good as there are no clinical findings consistent with a serious injury.  This excludes the problem with the headaches.  The patient will be assessed by a Neurologist who will comment on the diagnosis and prognosis with regards to the headaches.

Determining when the symptoms will come under good control and/or resolve is very difficult.  The patient may benefit considerably from low dose Amitriptyline to improve sleep and a consistent core stability/strengthening program with one or one supervision.  The supervision from a Pilates instructor would continue until she was on a full program and was aware of how to progress the exercises.  This usually takes about eight sessions over eight weeks.  The patient then graduates to doing the exercises on their own or joining a small group.

Damages of $50,000 were awarded for the Plaintiffs non-pecuniary loss (money for pain and suffeirng and loss of enjoyment of life) and $60,000 was awarded for the young Plaintiff’s diminished earning capacity.

Paragraphs 41-48 of this judgement are worth reviewing for anyone interested in some of the factors courts look at when weighing a Plaintiff’s credibility in soft tissue injury cases.

In the second soft tissue injury case released on Friday (Mohamadi v. Tremblay) the Plaintiff was awarded $10,000 for non-pecuniary damages as a result of injuries sustained in a 2006 BC car crash.   In valuing the Plaintiff’s injuries at this modest figure Mr. Justice Truscott of the BC Supreme Court summarized the injuries as follows:

[91] It is extremely difficult to determine the value of the plaintiff’s claims with all of the inconsistent evidence he has given and the lack of supporting evidence from his doctors.

[92] I do accept that in the motor vehicle accident of February 14, 2006 the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to his neck, back and left shoulder, accompanied by headaches.

[93] I am prepared to accept that his soft tissue injuries lingered on for a period in the order of two years on a mild basis but thereafter I conclude that he had recovered with no long term consequences.

[94] I accept that his headaches lasted for a short period of time but thereafter this complaint is not supported by his physicians and I reject his evidence that his headaches continued thereafter.

This case is also worth reviewing for the court’s discussion of plaintiff credibility in soft tissue injury claims.  Many of the Plaintiff’s claims were rejected by the Court.   Specifically in paragraphs 95-113 the court gives reasons for rejecting many of the Plaintiff’s claims and these paragraphs contain a useful discussion for anyone interested in some of the factors courts consider important when weighing credibility in ICBC Injury Claims.

ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Claims, Low Velocity Impacts and Credibility

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC LVI (Low Velocity Impact) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, Uncategorized. 1 Comment on ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Claims, Low Velocity Impacts and Credibility

When ICBC denies compensation for an injury claim due to their LVI Program the credibility of the Plaintiff is usually put squarely at issue. In Soft Tissue Injury Claims ICBC often challenges the veracity of the Plaintiff alleging that the injuries are being exaggerated or perhaps wholly made up.
Reasons for judgement were transcribed today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, dealing with such a defence.
In today’s case (Jezdic v. Danielisz) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2003 BC Car Crash.  The crash occurred in a parking lot and was a low velocity impact which resulted in little vehicle damage.  The Plaintiff alleged that she suffered various injuries in this collision.  Mr. Justice Sigrudson dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim finding that she ‘has not dischared the burden on her to establish on a balance of probabilities that she was injured in the car accident’.   In reaching this conclusion the Court made the following comments on credibility, low velocity impacts and soft tissue injury claims:

[30] I should consider the circumstances of the collision.  I am mindful that persistent injuries can arise from low velocity collisions.  This was a low velocity collision.  The defendant’s pickup truck was backing out of a spot two spaces (or at least one space) over from the plaintiff’s father’s vehicle.  The parking lot was slightly higher on the side where the defendant was parked, and lower on the side where the plaintiff’s vehicle was.  The accident occurred, I find, when the defendant’s vehicle backed into the plaintiff’s vehicle at an angle.  The defendant’s bumper rode up over the plaintiff’s bumper causing it to compress and split the paint on the bumper, and then the defendant’s vehicle struck the area around the trunk with the left rear corner of the defendant’s vehicle’s bumper.  The damage to the plaintiff’s father’s vehicle was to the lower part of the trunk.  The cost of repairs was $1,122 and the trunk was still operational.  There was no misalignment of the plaintiff’s bumper.

[31] I found the defendant to be a reliable witness.  The circumstances of the accident seem to accord with his evidence.  I think he was prepared to concede things when his evidence was shown to possibly be incorrect.  I accept that he was moving slowly – he described backing up at “a snail’s pace” with his foot on the brake pedal.  The evidence indicates that there were cars parked close to him that required him to move slowly as he backed out.  However, he was careless in ensuring that he did not make contact with the vehicles behind him as he was backing up.  He testified that he did not feel the impact, but agreed on cross-examination that it was possible that the plaintiff’s car moved two to three inches.

[32] Mr. Addision points to the fact that the defendant’s bumper appears lower on the left side, and the fact that there was a “wow” in the bar that attaches the bumper to the frame, but I find it extremely unlikely that those things occurred in this accident.  The accident, I find, was a very minor one with minor damage.

[33] Given the nature of the accident, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that the plaintiff says she was thrown first into the steering wheel and then back, and had immediate pain in her neck and her back.  But as has been noted, there is no rule of law or physics that a person cannot be injured in a low speed collision.  There was no expert evidence lead as to the anticipated body movement in an accident of the type that the plaintiff described.  However, I find some merit in Mr. Addison’s submission that it is probably difficult for a person to recall with any precision exactly how her body moves when she is in a collision.

[34] Although I found that Dr. Petrovic was a reasonable witness, his evidence depended on the veracity and reliability of the symptoms that were described to him by the plaintiff from time to time.

[35] Let me turn to the evidence of the plaintiff.  I have a number of concerns about the plaintiff’s evidence.  The plaintiff’s evidence contained significant inconsistencies in the manner in which she described her symptoms at trial, to her doctor and on discovery.

(a)        She testified at trial that her neck pain got better in the first eight months and there were times that she did not have neck pain, but on discovery she said that the pain in her neck was constant.

(b)        At trial, she said that the back pain was there for two years and got better, but came back depending on the weather.  However, on discovery in December 2005, more than two years after the accident, she said that the back pain was as constant and severe and had not changed since the accident.

(c)        Her description of her symptoms and their duration is inconsistent with Dr. Petrovic’s report that on July 17, 2003, three months after the accident, the plaintiff noted no neck or lower back symptomatolgy.

(d)        Her description of the fact that her injuries had resolved by about two years after the accident was inconsistent with her description to Dr Sovio in May 2007, four years after the accident, that she had pain in the back since the time of the accident.

[36] There were other aspects of the plaintiff’s evidence which were contradictory to other evidence that she gave or inconsistent with evidence that I accepted on a balance of probabilities.

(a)        Her evidence at trial was that she had spoken to Dr Petrovic’s office rather than going in, that she received the doctor’s advice from his receptionist but did not speak to him on the telephone, but on discovery I find that she said that she had spoken with the doctor on the telephone;

(b)        Her evidence about whether she was a member of the Lady Dyna-fit health club before the accident was different at trial than on discovery.  She explained her evidence at trial that before trial she went to that club on a free pass or tickets or on a promotion before the accident but the evidence of the owner Ms. Humphries suggests that the ability to use the club on that basis was quite limited.  This evidence suggested to me that on discovery and at trial she exaggerated to a degree the amount of her physical activity prior to the accident.

(c)        The plaintiff’s evidence at trial that she saw the truck moving pretty fast towards her vehicle was inconsistent with her evidence on discovery where she said that she heard the truck and did not see it.

(d)        In a statement given by the plaintiff after the accident she said that the impact moved the car she was in one meter but at trial she professed not to know how long a meter was and held her hands up four to six inches indicating that might be the distance that the car moved

(e)        She said at trial that she was upset after the accident and told the defendant it was because of the pain that she suffered but the defendant denied that she said that.  I accept the defendant’s description of the accident and of his subsequent discussion with the plaintiff.

[37] In assessing the plaintiff’s credibility I must take into account that English is not her first language, but also that she has been in Canada for ten years and appeared to me to be able to converse easily in English.  At the end of her cross-examination, she was indicating a lack of understanding of the terms and questions used during the discovery.  The plaintiff was offered an interpreter for the discovery but did not take that offer up.  Her inability to understand questions near the end of her cross-examination I found to be disingenuous.  It appeared to become an excuse that she felt she could use to fend off questions on cross-examination that she found difficult.  She appeared to be able to use the transcript from the discovery to analyze the questions for the purpose of explaining her evidence.

[38] I think that the inconsistencies in her evidence that I described are significant and are not explained by her lack of understanding of the questions on discovery or at trial.

[39] The burden is on the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was injured in the accident that was caused by the admitted negligence of the defendant.  Even in the absence of any objective symptoms, the court can be and often is persuaded by the evidence of the plaintiff.

[40] What is my overall assessment?  Has the plaintiff’s evidence persuaded me that she was injured, and the extent to which she was injured in the accident?

[41] I have concluded that on all the evidence that plaintiff has not discharged the burden on her to prove that she has suffered any injury in this accident.  I find the plaintiff’s evidence to be exaggerated and significantly inconsistent both internally and with facts that I find have been established such that I have serious reservations about her credibility to the extent that I can not rely on it alone to determine whether the plaintiff has discharged the burden on her to prove that she was injured in this accident.

[42] I find no support for the plaintiff’s case in the other evidence in this trial.  Dr. Petrovic’s report depends entirely on the reliability of the plaintiff’s reporting and accordingly his report can be given little weight.  I found no evidence that provided corroboration for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  The circumstances of the accident I find were very minor and did not provide corroboration for the injuries of the type that the plaintiff asserts.

[43] Looking at the plaintiff’s evidence in light of all of the evidence, I have concluded that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden on her to establish on a balance of probabilities that she was injured in the car accident.

[44] The plaintiff’s action must be dismissed.