Uncategorized – Page 15

Speeding Bus Driver Found Faultless for Collision With Moose

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on August 22, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dismissing a negligence lawsuit against a bus driver who collided with a moose.

In today’s case (Tran v. Anderson) the Defendant was operating a Greyhound bus on June 22, 2011. He was travelling above the posted speed limit. A moose appeared “suddenly out of the foliage to the right of the highway, about 20 feet in front of the bus“. The Court found that the Defendant had no time to react in these circumstances and even if was travelling at the posted speed limit the result would have been the same.

In dismissing the negligence claim Madam Justice Adair provided the following reasons:

$86,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Triggering of Symptoms in Pre Existing Degenerative Spine

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on August 20, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgment were published today assessing damages for a collision resulting in various soft tissue injuries coupled with the onset of symptoms in a pre-existing degenerative spine.

In today’s case (Ryan v. Lawson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 collision. The Defendant accepted fault. The crash resulted in a variety of soft tissue injuries many of which recovered. THe crash also resulted in the onset of symptoms in a pre-existing albeit asymptomatic degenerative condition in the Plaintiff’s spine. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $86,000 Madam Justice Jackson made the following findings:

Insurer Hit With $30,000 in Damages for “Mental Distress” For Wrongfully Denying Insurance Benefits

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on July 30, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, finding an insurance company in breach of contract and ordering them to pay, in addition to wrongfully withheld benefits, damages for “mental distress”.

In today’s case (Gascoigne v. Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company) the Plaintiff was insured with the Defendant. She became disabled in her own occupation and sought benefits. The Defendant initially approved the plaintiff’s claim and paid LTD benefits for a short period but later took “the position that the plaintiff is not disabled and it has refused to pay further benefits.“.

The Plaintiff produced medical evidence in support of her claim. The Defendant did not have any independent medical exams contradicting this evidence and instead relied on a medical consultant whose evidence the Court criticized as amounting “to little more than generic opinions unsupported by the evidence”.

In ordering that the Defendant pay damages for ‘mental distress’ for wrongfully denying insurance benefits Mr. Justice Skolrood provided the following reasons:

Diminished Housekeeping Capacity Claim Assessed for “Fastidious Housekeeper”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on July 18, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for diminished housekeeping capacity for a plaintiff with ‘fastidious’ housekeeping standards.

In today’s case (Broomfield v. Lof) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 rear end collision. Liability was admitted. The crash resulted in a variety of injuries the most serious of which were chronic depression and somatic symptom disorder. These resulted in a period of total disability followed by the Plaintiff being able to return to work but on a reduced basis.

The Plaintiff had restrictions in her housekeeping abilities and these were medically supported. The Defendant opposed damages for diminished housekeeping capacity in part because the plaintiff admitted that “she was able to do what she wanted if she pushed through the pain“. Despite this admission the court found the evidence justified damages for diminished housekeeping capacity and awarded just over $100,000 for past and future losses. In reaching this assessment Madam Justice Young provided the following reasons:

$130,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Depression and Somatic Symptom Disorder

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on July 18, 2019. Posted in ICBC Psychological Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archives of psychiatric injury assessments, reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic depression and somatic symptom disorder.

In today’s case (Broomfield v. Lof) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 rear end collision. The impact was “significant” and the Defendant admitted fault.

“Little Weight” Given to ICBC Expert Witness With “Lack of an Open Mind”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on July 17, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s archives of expert witnesses being judicially criticized for advocacy, reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, expressing reservations about the reliability of an ICBC retained expert who “became somewhat combative during cross-examination” downplayed the Plaintiff’s subjective reports of pain and showed a “lack of an open mind“.

In today’s case (Luck v. Shack) the plaintiff was injured in a 2014 collision that the Defendant accepted fault for. The crash resulted in chronic soft tissue injuries and myofascial pain syndrome. In the course of the lawsuit the Defendant retained an orthopaedic surgeon who provided an opinion minimizing the Plaintiff’s injuries and their relationship to the crash. In concluding that “little weight” should be given to this doctor’s opinion Madam Justice MacDonald provided the following comments:

$50,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Jaw Injury

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on June 28, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic jaw injury sustained in a collision.

In today’s case (Zamora v. Lapointe) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2014 rear end collision. Liability was admitted by the Defendant. The crash resulted in various soft tissue injuries along with a temporomandibular joint injury. His back, neck and jaw symptoms continued to the time of trial and were not expected to fully recover. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $50,000 Madam Justice Duncan provided the following reasons:

$110,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for L2 Fracture With Persistent Symptoms

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on June 18, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, assessing damages for chronic injuries suffered in a vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Kennedy v. Cumming) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2015 collision. His was struck by the Defendant’s vehicle while operating his motorcycle. The crash resulted in a fracture to the Plaintiff’s low spine and the onset of symptoms in pre-existing but asymptomatic degeneration. The symptoms persisted to the time of trial and were partly disabling. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $110,000 Madam Justice Burke provided the following reasons:

Defence Doctor Opinion Rejected Where Plaintiff Not Examined and Diagnosis “Inferred”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on June 14, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for collision related injuries and rejecting defence expert medical evidence.

In today’s case (Mladjo v. Etheridge) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2016 collision. Fault was admitted by the Defendant. The crash cause chronic soft tissue injuries and damages were assessed on this basis.

ICBC Expert Witness Rejected Due to “Selective View of the Facts”

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on June 10, 2019. Posted in ICBC Psychological Injury Cases, Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a Plaintiff’s injuries and rejecting expert evidence retained by ICBC.

In today’s case (Wong v. Draaistra) the Plaintiff was injured in two separate collisions. Fault was admitted by the Defendants for the crashes. In addition to physical injuries the Plaintiff developed “psychiatric or emotional problems that have likely increased and prolonged her physical pain, and have caused her life to shrink to near-isolation in an unmaintained home behind almost permanently closed blinds“.