Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . 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.
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . 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:
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . 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:
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . 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:
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . 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.
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . 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“.
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Court of Appeal upholding a trial dismissal of a negligence claim involving a mooring rope which ‘catapulted’ into a Plaintiff causing injury.
In today’s case (Oddy v. Waterway Partnership Equities Inc.) the Plaintiff was injured when “a stake embedded in a beach, and attached by the mooring rope to the houseboat, broke free and was catapulted back towards the houseboat“. The stake struck the Plaintiff causing significant injuries.
The Plaintiff argued
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.
Last year the BC Court of Appeal clarified the law surrounding claims for diminished housekeeping capacity. In short the court noted care must be taken to determine if a loss is for pecuniary vs non-pecuniary diminished housekeeping capacity. This distinction is perhaps more important than ever given the recent legal changes capping the non-pecuniary rights of British Columbians.
To this end helpful reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for pecuniary diminished capacity.
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, ordering production of a statement from a Defendant to ICBC to be disclosed to the Plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit.
In today’s case (Canning v. Mann) the Plaintiff was injured in a crash and sued for damages. The Defendant provided ICBC a statement detailing the circumstances of the crash. The Defendant refused to provide the statement to the Plaintiff in the lawsuit arguing it was privileged. The court ordered production noting there was insufficient evidence to establish litigation privilege. In ordering the statement to be disclosed Mr. Justice Basran provided the following reasons:
Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on . Posted in Uncategorized.
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Court of Appeal expanding the scope of a class action lawsuit against ICBC to allow claims for punitive damages to be included in the claim.
In the recent case (Ari v. ICBC) ICBC was sued after an employee of theirs passed personal records ICBC kept to “an acquaintance involved in the drug trade” after which a series of attacks were carried out against some of the individuals who had their private information compromised. The court noted the following background