"Outlandish" Uncorroborated Injury Claims Rejected
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, largely rejecting many “outlandish” claims in a personal injury lawsuit that were not supported by medical evidence.
In today’s case (Lamb v. Fullerton) the Plaintiff was involved in several collisions and sued for damages. He claimed aggravation of a historic head injury and further claimed severe consequences including ‘vomiting 100 times in a day‘ and severe bowel incontinence. The reported symptoms and any relationship to the collisions in question were not corroborated by medical evidence. The court was critical both of the lack of evidence in support of the claim and the Plaintiff’s credibility. In rejecting these and other portions of the claim Madam Justice Warren provided the following reasons:
9] Mr. Lamb’s testimony was unsatisfactory. Regrettably, I have concluded that it is almost wholly unreliable in establishing that any injury or aggravation of injury was caused by these accidents, particularly in the complex circumstances of a serious, ongoing pre-existing condition and two intervening accidents that are not the subject of this action.
 Mr. Lamb unreasonably persisted in making claims that were inconsistent with either independent evidence or other aspects of his own evidence, and he made little, if any, attempt to explain the inconsistencies. Two particularly striking examples were his insistence that his behavioural and memory problems were aggravated by the accidents in question and his repeated assertion that he broke his clavicle in the December 8, 2010 accident…
 Mr. Lamb also baldly advanced claims, some of which were out of the ordinary and even outlandish, without corroborating evidence in circumstances where one would expect corroborating evidence to exist.
 Mr. Lamb claimed to have been vomiting 100 times in a day. He claimed that the bowel incontinence was so severe that he was using countless incontinence pads and 20 gallons of isopropanol annually to clean his soiled clothing. He offered his own opinion as to the cause of these conditions, which was blood accumulating in his stomach as a result of bleeding from his esophagus caused by wincing and cringing due to the pain. Yet, he appears to have taken few, if any, steps to obtain medical attention for these conditions; he offered no medical evidence to support his own dubious opinion as to the cause of these conditions; and he produced not even a single receipt for isopropanol or incontinence pads…
 Mr. Lamb acknowledged having been untruthful in other contexts. He admitted that he told a surgeon who performed his cataract surgery in June 2012 that he had undergone chemotherapy for leukemia but he seemed to reluctantly acknowledge during the trial that he has never had leukemia…
 As I have already explained, because Mr. Lamb’s subjective reports provide the foundation of his claims it is particularly important to examine his evidence carefully. For the reasons already expressed, I have concluded that his evidence was neither credible nor reliable. He has failed to marshal any persuasive independent corroborating evidence. Most importantly, he has presented no medical evidence in respect of the cause of the injuries and conditions he claims to suffer from; whether his pre-existing conditions were aggravated by the accidents; if so, the extent of the aggravation; or the impact of the two intervening accidents on his current condition. In the circumstances of this case, such evidence is necessary in order to establish possible causes of the injuries and conditions about which he complains: Deo v. Wong, 2008 BCCA 110 at para. 19.
bc injury law, credibility, Lamb v. Fullerton, Madam Justice Warren