Skip to main content

Show Me the Money 6 – 2011 ICBC Lawyer and Doctor Billings Released

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

It’s that time of year again.  ICBC has now released their annual Statements and Schedules of Financial Information for 2011.  This is my 6th year highlighting this information.  You can access the following previous years information at the following links:
2010
2009
2008
2007
As previously discussed, this report highlights the billings of Suppliers of Goods and Services which includes doctors who perform ‘independent’ medical exams for ICBC.   When ICBC sends you to an independent medical exam these financial statements can be checked to see just how much money any given physician was paid by ICBC in a calendar year.
ICBC routinely uses a handful of doctors to perform these independent exams.  A quick glance reveals that some physicians bill well into the six digit range annually for these services.
Another provider of ’services’ revealed in these financial statements are law firms who do ICBC defence work. I have previously posted that some lawfirms and lawyers work both sides of the fence, that is on some cases they work for ICBC and in other cases they work for injured plaintiff’s suing someone insured by ICBC. According to the BC Law Society there is nothing wrong with this but these lawyers need to let their clients know if they signed the ICBC defence contract(known as the SAA) which restricts the lawyers ability to make claims against ICBC.  This is required so clients can make an informed decision when choosing to hire their lawyer.
If you hired a lawyer to advance your ICBC injury claim and are curious if your lawyer also works for ICBC you can check these annual reports to see just how much money any given lawfirm is paid by ICBC in each calendar year.

$80,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Myogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Cases, Uncategorized.

Adding to this site’s database of caselaw addressing non-pecuniary damages for TOS, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, addressing such an injury.
In this week’s case (Small v. Upshaw) the Plaintiff  was involved in three collisions; the first in 2006, the second in 2008 and the last in 2010.  The Defendants admitted liability for these and it was agreed to have damages addressed globally.
The plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries and a left sided myogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.
(Image by  Nicholas Zarosky via Wikimedia)
His limitations continued to the time of trial and were expected to be permanent.  The plaintiff worked as a journeyman auto mechanic and although he could continue to work with his injuries these limited his capacity.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $80,000 Mr. Justice Rogers provided the following comments:
[21] The three medical professionals who testified at the trial, Drs. Scheffler, Vallentyne and Coghlan, all opined that the plaintiff’s present symptoms arise from and were caused by the accidents. They all felt that the plaintiff’s symptoms are likely to be permanent….

23] I was impressed by the plaintiff. I found him to be a credible and reliable witness. The few discrepancies between his evidence at trial and in discovery were not, in my view, significant and did not impair his testimony. I accept that the plaintiff’s left arm was intermittently symptomatic shortly after the accident. I find that his main complaints then, though, had to do with his neck and back. Those pains were constant and debilitating. His arm symptoms appeared from time to time and were never genuinely disabling. For those reasons, the plaintiff’s left arm complaints merited and received less attention during the months following the second accident.

[24] It follows that I find that the second accident did cause the plaintiff to suffer left-sided myogenic thoracic outlet syndrome. This condition is self-limiting – if the plaintiff keeps the amount of reaching he does to a minimum, the less he will be bothered by its symptoms. He is bothered by the symptoms once or twice a week…

[34] As noted above, the plaintiff impressed me as a credible and reliable witness. I find that the plaintiff is plagued daily by pains in his neck, left shoulder, and upper and mid-back, and that from time to time his left arm develops a feeling of numbness and tingling. When those arm symptoms occur, they last until the following morning. All of these symptoms were caused by the motor vehicle accidents for which the defendants have admitted liability. Of the three accidents, the second caused the plaintiff the most harm.

[35] The plaintiff’s pain symptoms are not intermittent. He does not have “good days and bad days”. His symptoms are aggravated by activity, particularly by working with his hands and arms over his head, while stooping over an engine bay, or pretzeled beneath a dashboard. By the end of a typical workday, the plaintiff is stiff and sore. He has little or no energy for recreation or socializing. He takes pain relief and muscle relaxing medication daily. These facts distinguish the plaintiff’s case from the circumstances of the cases cited by the defendant and in which the court made general damage awards of less than $50,000.

[36] In my view, the plaintiff’s circumstances merit an award for non-pecuniary loss of $80,000.

Double Costs Awarded to Plaintiff After Besting Formal Settlement Offer

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9, Uncategorized. 65 Comments on Double Costs Awarded to Plaintiff After Besting Formal Settlement Offer

Reasons for judgement were released recently by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, addressing costs consequences following a trial where a Plaintiff bested his formal settlement offer.
In the recent case (Delgiglio v. British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General)) the Plaintiff was injured after a RCMP officer ran a red light resulting in a collision.  The officer was found negligent at trial and damages of just over $330,000 were assessed.
Prior to trial the Plaintiff provided a formal settlement offer of $175,000.  The Plaintiff sought double costs for besting the offer.  In finding it appropriate to award double costs Madam Justice Gropper provided the following reasons:

Consideration of the factors

Was the offer one that ought reasonably to have been accepted?

[6] At the time the offer was made, the parties were approximately two weeks to trial. They had exchanged all the documents, the examinations for discoveries were complete and all the medical reports were exchanged.

[7] The defendants’ response is that the case reflected complex causation issues involving indivisible injuries.

[8] I consider this factor to favour the plaintiff’s position. While causation was a significant issue, it was addressed by the plaintiff’s physicians in their medical legal reports. The defendants did not tender any medical legal reports. The defendants had the plaintiff’s medical legal reports at the time the offer was made and was therefore in a position to evaluate the offer in spite of its consistent position in respect of causation.

Relationship of Offer and Judgment

[9] The plaintiff asserts that the offer of November 15, 2011 contained a meaningful element of compromise. He also argues that the assessment of damages significantly exceeded the compromise of settlement which the plaintiff offered two weeks before the trial. The defendants state no position in respect of this factor. This factor supports the plaintiff’s position.

Relative financial circumstances

[10] This factor is self evident: the plaintiff is an individual and the defendants have significant resources available. This factor supports the plaintiff’s position.

Other factors

[11] The plaintiff raises the defendants’ contact, particularly in regard to the question of liability.

[12] While I have found that the defendants were entirely liable for the accident, I do not consider that this constitutes a basis for awarding double costs to the plaintiff.

[13] Based upon the application of the factors referred to in Rule 9-1(6), I find that the plaintiff is entitled to his costs at Scale B up to November 14, 2011, and double costs thereafter. The plaintiff is entitled to his assessable disbursements. The double costs rule does not apply to disbursements.

ICBC Review Report Released – ICBC Rate Hike Approved

Written by admin on . Posted in Tort Reform, Uncategorized.


Earlier this year the BC Government transferred responsibility of ICBC to BC’s Minister of Finance, Kevin Falcon.
Today, Kevin Falcon outlined proposed overhauls at ICBC.  You can find the Government News Release here.  The full ICBC Review Report can be accessed here.  In the wake of this announcement it was also revealed that ICBC CEO Jon Schubert will be stepping down as of November 15.  In conjunction with the Government Press Release ICBC has provided the following public response.
And last but not least, today the BC Utilities Commission released their report approving ICBC’s requested Rate Hike.

Litigation Privilege Claim Fails Due to the 'Two Hats' of ICBC

Written by admin on . Posted in Civil Procedure, ICBC No-Fault (Part 7) Benefits, Uncategorized. 45 Comments on Litigation Privilege Claim Fails Due to the 'Two Hats' of ICBC

(Update February 12, 2015 – the below decision was overturned in reasons for judgement released today by the BC Court of Appeal)
_________________________
I previously discussed the Two Hats of ICBC and suggested fixing the conflict of interest this creates.  Reasons for judgement were released earlier this year by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this conflict of interest in action in the context of a litigation privilege claim.
In the recent case (Raj v. Khosravi) the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision.  He was insured with ICBC and met with an adjuster to advance his claim.  After the initial meeting the ICBC adjuster commissioned the services of a private investigator who produced a report.
In the course of his lawsuit the Plaintiff requested a copy of this report but ICBC refused to provide it arguing it was subject to litigation privilege.  The plaintiff argued that the report was commissioned in the ‘investigative stage’ following the collision and further that even if the report was in part prepared for the purpose of defending subsequent litigation, it was also commissioned in the context of his claim for Part 7 benefits.  Mr. Justice Groves agreed and ordered the report to be disclosed.  The Court provided the following reasons:
[29] It is clear there were two distinct purposes for this investigative report.  That is conceded by the Defendant.  The question then becomes, was the dominant purpose litigation?  And has the defendant met the onus of satisfying the court that in fact the dominant purpose was litigation?…
[49]  I am also of the view that the defendant’s claim for privilege must fail, in regards to a dominant purpose analysis.  Again, assuming that we’ve gotten over the litigation privilege hurdle, here this investigation, by the adjuster’s own admission, had more than one purpose.  As such, the onus of claiming and eliminating the competing purpose rests on the defendant.
[50]  I agree with the submission of the plaintiff that, during the entirety of the evidence of the adjuster, both in affidavit and during his cross-examination on his affidavit, there is a strong suggestion, a clear suggestion, that the purpsoe of this investigative report was a true dual purpose report.
[51]  Again, the information obtained by the adjuster, at his interview with the plaintiff on November 14, 2006 was information necessary to potentially adjudicate a tort claim, and potentially adjudicate a Part 7 claim.  In discovery, the adjuster confirmed that he had retained the investigator during the meeting with the plaintiff, that “the intention is to get information that is going to contradict what I was told in the initial appointment”.
[52]  What he was told in his initial appointment related to both Part 7 claims as well as tort claims.  The adjuster seemed to draw no distinction in the investigation, as to which of those two claims is to be covered or emphasized.  As such, the onus of showing that the dominant purpose of the report was litigation cannot be met, on the evidence.
[53]  Based on what I have said, I will allow the appeal of the master in regards to the report of the investigator, dated December 15, 2006 and order that it be disclosed.
To my understanding this decision is not publicly available but, as always, I’m happy to provide a copy to anyone who contacts me and requests one.

ICBC Hit and Run Claims, Reasonable Efforts and Estoppel

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized. 68 Comments on ICBC Hit and Run Claims, Reasonable Efforts and Estoppel

Further to my previous posts discussing legal obligations when seeking compensation following an unidentified motorist collision in BC, interesting reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, suggesting that in the right circumstances estoppel could be used to overcome a ‘failure to take reasonable efforts to identify the Defendant’ defence after a collision has been reported to ICBC.
In this week’s case (Springer v. Kee) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  The at fault driver fled the scene before the plaintiff could identify them.  The plaintiff reported the claim to ICBC and to the police but did not take any steps after this to try and identify the at fault motorist.
The plaintiff brought an action seeking compensation from ICBC pursuant to Section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.  ICBC brought an application to dismiss the lawsuit arguing the plaintiff failed to take all reasonable steps to identify the motorist after reporting the claim.  Mr. Justice Armstrong agreed and dismissed the claim.  Before doing so, however, the Court criticized ICBC’s actions and suggested that if estoppel was plead the outcome may have been different.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[92] I accept the view that ICBC was not obliged to warn the plaintiff of his ongoing obligations in the immediate aftermath of his reporting the accident to ICBC; ICBC was, in my view, remiss in their duty to inform the injured party about the steps necessary to perfect his claim, particularly in light of the conversations with the adjuster indicating that his claim had been accepted by the corporation. It seems to me that ICBC’s communications with an injured person ought to include a warning about the prerequisites of the claim against an unidentified motorist.

[93] In my view, although not obliged to advise people of their obligations under s. 24(5), ICBC ought to recognize the risks that laypeople will rely on remarks made by adjusters suggesting settlements can be expected without warning that the claim will be denied if s. 24(5) is not complied with. Regrettably, I also note that the “Helping You with Your Hit and Run Claim” pamphlet published by ICBC that was given to the plaintiff by the adjuster does not mention the implications of s. 24(5) of the Act.

[94] Counsel for the plaintiff mentioned the concept of waiver, but did not argue this as a case of estoppel and the pleadings do not advance any claim against ICBC except as nominal defendant.

[95] Section 24(5) does not permit me to consider the actions of ICBC in the assessment of the plaintiff’s obligations under the Act. That may be the subject of a waiver or estoppel, which is outside of the scope of this application.

[96] For the reasons given by Barrow J. in Tessier, I am unable to conclude that the actions of ICBC excuse Mr. Springer’s inaction in the weeks following the accident. Therefore, I would dismiss the argument of the plaintiff in this case; I cannot grant judgment because he did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver as required under s. 24(5) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231.

$100,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Triggering Early Onset of Arthritic Symptoms

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Hip Injury Cases, ICBC Knee Injury Cases, Occupier's liability claims, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on $100,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Triggering Early Onset of Arthritic Symptoms

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for the triggering of arthritic symptoms in pre-existing asymptomatic degenerative joints.
In the recent case (Witt v. Vancovuer International Airport Authority) the Plaintiff was a fire-truck salesman.  Chalking this up to the ‘you learn something everyday’ category, this is apparently a lucrative career with the Plaintiff earning approximately $740,000 per year.  While at the Vancouver Airport the Plaintiff fell through metal plates “that were not secured by the long stakes that should have been used to secure the plates” creating “voids below the plates which allowed the plates to shift as vehicle traffic went over them“.  The Defendant was found fully liable for the incident.
The fall triggered symptoms of pain in the Plaintiff’s back, knee and hip.  He had pre-existing arthritis in these areas with the fall accelerating these conditions resulting in long-standing pain.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $100,000 Mr. Justice Burnyear provided the following reasons:

[59] Based on the conclusions reached by the medical experts, on the testimony of Mr. Witt and Ms. Witt, and on the testimony of those who knew him well, I conclude that Mr. Witt has considerable and continuing pain as a result of the Fall and that the pain that he has suffered has made his life less enjoyable.  I find that his inability to walk long distances, his inability to enjoy golfing, hiking and tennis, and his reduced sleep and energy levels have come as a result of the Fall.  I am satisfied that Mr. Witt should be compensated for that pain and suffering.

[60] Regarding the particular complaints of Mr. Witt, I make the following findings.  I find that Mr. Witt now suffers from chronic pain as a result of the Fall.  I also find that, as a result of the chronic pain, there have been negative changes to his disposition, a considerable reduction in his physical activity and capacity, and a significant negative effect on his marriage.

[61] Regarding the back pain experienced by Mr. Witt, I find that some but not all of the back pain experienced by Mr. Witt as a result of the Fall settled by the summer of 2010.  However, I also find that he is now more susceptible to develop spinal stenosis as a result of the Fall.

[62] Regarding the right hip of Mr. Witt, I find that he continues to have severe pain from time to time and discomfort when sitting.  As a result of the Fall, I find that osteoarthritis has become systematic and that this has become the case earlier than what would have occurred but for the Fall.  While I find that there was a degree of degenerative spondylosis and arthritis prior to the Fall, I find that the Fall produced severe pain in the right hip that would not have been experienced by Mr. Witt but for the Fall and which has produced early onset of degenerative spondylosis and arthritis.

[63] As a result of the Fall, I find that the pain and weakness being experienced by Mr. Witt in his right knee has accelerated the existing degenerative arthritis so that Mr. Witt now requires surgery.  I find that the presence of degenerative arthritis in the right knee of Mr. Witt was accelerated by the Fall…

[68] Taking into account the injuries caused by the negligence of the Defendants, the duration of the pain and suffering produced by the negligence, the likely future pain and suffering caused by the Fall, and by the early onset of arthritic problems caused by the Fall, I set the non-pecuniary damages available to Mr. Witt at $100,000.00.

The Court went on to note that the ongoing injuries and expected medical interventions will interfere with the Plaintiff’s career and assessed damages for diminished-earning capacity at $600,000.

$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic PTSD

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Psychological Injury Cases, ICBC PTSD Cases.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic psychological difficulties which arose as a result of a collision.
In last week’s case (Foubert v. Song) the Plaintiff was injured in 2007 collision caused by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff was 60 years old at the time and 65 years old at the time of trial.  The collision caused some soft tissue injuries which made a good recovery.  Unfortunately the collision also caused Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which continued to affect her at the time of trial and led to her early retirement.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Mr. Justice Punnett provided the following reasons:

[107] The evidence of the plaintiff’s co-workers, son and friends indicates that the plaintiff, prior to the accident, was a high energy and enthusiastic teacher and that those traits carried through into her day to day life. They have all had the opportunity to observe and deal with her both before and after the accident.

[108] I am satisfied that as a result of the accident the plaintiff has gone from an independent, energetic teacher with an active and varied social life to an individual who is no longer able to work as a teacher, particularly of young children, who can no longer tolerate large groups nor the over stimulation of a variety of social situations. Her intention to keep working past 65 years of age has been thwarted as a result of this motor vehicle accident.

[109] Given the age of the plaintiff and the fact that it is now 5 years after the accident I am satisfied that the plaintiff while having recovered from the soft tissue injuries and to a certain extent from the PTSD has not, as noted by Dr. Shane completely recovered. Her present and future level of recovery is evidenced by Dr. Shane’s opinion that her status occupationally is unlikely to change and that she remains unable to return to teaching art.

[110] Having observed the plaintiff, her evidence of the effect of the accident and the corroborating evidence of the lay witnesses, as well as the medical evidence, I am satisfied that the plaintiff will not return to employment.

[111] Taking into account the evidence in this case as well as the authorities cited I am satisfied that an appropriate award for pain and suffering and a modest amount for loss of housekeeping is $90,000.

[112] Given my findings with respect to the pre-accident complaints there shall be no reduction for them.

More on Responsive Opinion Evidence Admissibility

Written by admin on . Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on More on Responsive Opinion Evidence Admissibility

Reasons for judgement were published recently by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing responsive expert reports and the discretion of the Court to adjourn a trial to permit late expert evidence to be introduced.
In the recent case (Lennox v. Karim) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 collision.   87 days prior to trial the Plaintiff served a medico-legal report diagnosing the Plaintiff with a meniscal tear.  The Defendant obtained a report addressing this injury and served it on the Plaintiff.  This report was served in less than 84 days before trail.  The Plaintiff objected arguing this report was late and that it was not truly responsive.  Mr. Justice Armstrong disagreed and admitted the report finding that it was responsive, and if not, the trial should be adjourned to allow admission of the report to address the relatively late disclosure of the meniscal tear.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[38] In this case, Mr. Lennox failed to alert the defendant to the central issue of a torn meniscus. His pleadings indicated an injury of both knees without any reference in specific to the torn meniscus. This is significant in this case, because the plaintiff was under the obligation to obtain a court order to permit Dr. Stewart to testify and if that order had been applied for, the defendant would have been put on notice at an earlier time as to the issue which became central to this case.

[39] In my view the Leith report, in the words of Smith J., is not a freestanding medical opinion that ought to have been served under Rule 11-6(3). It is in its entirety a responsive opinion directed solely to one opinion of Dr. Stewart relating to the plaintiff’s medical condition, that being the torn meniscus…

[42] If I am wrong in this decision, it would have also been my further opinion that in the circumstances of this case the defendant would have otherwise been entitled to an adjournment of the trial to secure the medical report of Dr. Leith if it was not otherwise admissible under 11-6(4). It seems to me that 11-1(2) is purposely directed at requiring the plaintiff and defendant to avoid the last minute introduction of medical evidence in cases which may have proceeded for many years on a different track or a different theory. I note that neither of the experts described in the CPC report have been or are going to be called as witnesses in this case, but I am not required to deal with that issue.

[43] It seems to me that Dr. Leith’s report can simply be admitted and I can ignore those provisions which in my view are not appropriate.

"It Is No Impediment That The Offer Was Withdrawn" In Triggering Costs Consequences

Written by admin on . Posted in BC Supreme Court Costs Cases, BCSC Civil Rule 9. 49 Comments on "It Is No Impediment That The Offer Was Withdrawn" In Triggering Costs Consequences

Last month I discussed the fact that withdrawn formal settlement offers are capable of triggering costs consequences.  Reasons for judgement were released recently confirming this fact and awarding a Plaintiff double costs after besting a formal settlement offer which was withdrawn in the course of trial.
In the recent case (Pitts v. Martin) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  The injuries included chronic soft tissue injuries and post traumatic stress which limited the Plaintiff in physical tasks.
Prior to trial she provided a formal settlement offer of $100,000.  During the course of the trial the Plaintiff withdrew her formal offer.  The trial judgement exceeded her offer by $7,500.  The Plaintiff asked for double costs.  The defendant objected arguing a withdrawn offer could not trigger costs consequences.  Mr. Justice Dley disagreed and awarded double costs.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons:
[68]  …I am satisfied that in a case like this, an offer made on May 15th would have given the defendant sufficient time to make a reasoned analysis and respond in a timely fashion.  It is not an offer that was made on the eve of the trial commencing, without an opportunity to have it fully considered.  It is no impediment that the offer was withdrawn at the close the the Plaintiff’s case.  I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for double costs following the offer…
To my knowledge this judgement is not publicly available.  As always, I’m happy to provide a copy to anyone who contacts me and requests one.