Skip to main content

Tag: headaches

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Pain With Guarded Prognosis

Written by admin on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic injuries sustained from two vehicle collisions.
In today’s case (Harry v. Powar) the Plaintiff was a pedestrian struck by a vehicle in a crosswalk in 2012.  She was involved in a rear end collision the following year.  The collisions resulted in ” headaches, chronic myofascial pain syndrome, cervical facet joint syndrome and lumbar facet joint syndrome” with a guarded prognosis for full recovery.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Madam Justice Winteringham provided the following reasons:
[79]         I have found that Ms. Harry’s most significant injuries are the headaches, chronic myofascial pain syndrome, cervical facet joint syndrome and lumbar facet joint syndrome. ..

[84]         Ms. Harry was in her early thirties at the time of the Accidents. Sadly, the symptoms connected to her injuries are ongoing and I accept that her prognosis for a full recovery is guarded although she may experience some improvement with further treatments.

[85]         The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Harry has tried to manage her pain in a way that enables her to carry on with her life.  That is not to say her pain is insignificant.  Rather, I have found that Ms. Harry has done almost all that she can to pursue her career despite the defendants’ negligence.  It is also clear from the evidence that the energy exerted on pursuing her professional endeavours has taken a toll on the other aspects of her life.  She does not have the energy or the physical well being to regularly conduct day-to-day household tasks, engage in social events or participate in physical activity – all of which formed an integral part of her life before the accidents. ..

[90]         In all of the circumstances and taking into account the authorities I have been referred to, I am satisfied that an award of $85,000 will appropriately compensate Ms. Harry for her pain and suffering and loss of past and future enjoyment of life for which the defendants are responsible.    

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Post Traumatic Headaches

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

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for chronic headaches and an aggravation of a low back injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Drodge v. Kozak) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 two-vehicle collision on Vancouver Island.  ICBC admitted the crash was the fault of the other motorist.  Following the collision the Plaintiff suffered various injuries including chronic post-traumatic headaches.  The Plaintiff argued that these were caused by a traumatic brain injury sustained in the crash.  Madam Justice Dardi rejected this argument finding that the Plaintiff did not suffer a brain injury.  The Court did, however, find that the headaches were causally linked to trauma sustained in the collision.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 the Court made the following findings:

[106] I have concluded that the constellation of symptoms that Dr. Smart bases his concussion diagnosis upon are not sufficiently specific to be diagnostic. I prefer Dr. Teal’s opinion that it is unlikely that Mr. Drodge sustained a mild traumatic brain injury. I find that the headache, cognitive, and other symptoms attributed by Dr. Smart to post-concussion syndrome are non-specific symptoms. I accept Dr. Teal’s evidence that there are “multiple reasons for dizziness, for headaches, for sleep disturbances, for mood disturbance … they are not necessarily post-concussional symptoms.” Further, the expert evidence establishes that cognitive difficulties including poor concentration and mood disturbances can develop as a consequence of severe headaches.

[107] In summary on this issue, I have concluded that on balance the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Drodge suffered either a mild traumatic brain injury or concussion/post-concussion syndrome.

[108] Although I have concluded that the evidence falls short of establishing a diagnosis of concussion/post-concussion syndrome, I do accept that Mr. Drodge has suffered chronic headaches and associated cognitive symptoms for some four and a half years since the accident…

[120] In the end the question of Mr. Drodge’s prognosis is difficult. Taking into account all of the opinion evidence of the experts which conflicted on this point, I have concluded that Mr. Drodge is not likely to make a full recovery. While Mr. Drodge may be able to develop better coping strategies to manage his pain more effectively, and may experience some corresponding improvement in his headache symptoms as well as his back symptoms, there is only a small chance that he will improve to the degree that he will be employable…

[143] While the authorities are instructive I do not propose to review them in detail as they only provide general guidelines. I have reviewed all of the authorities provided by both counsel, and considering Mr. Drodge’s particular circumstances, and compensating him only for the increase in the exacerbation of his low back symptoms and not for the effects of his pre-existing back condition that he would have experienced in any case, I conclude a fair and reasonable reward for non-pecuniary damages is $85,000.

$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for Headaches and PTSD

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC PTSD Cases, Uncategorized.


Reasons for judgement were released last month by the BC Supreme Court, Duncan Registry, assessing damages for PTSD and chronic headaches following a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case the Plaintiff was involved in a 2005 collision.  Fault for the crash was admitted focusing the trial on the value of the claim.   The Plaintiff suffered from some pre-existing difficulties including depression and anxiety.  The collision caused new injuries including pain, headaches and PTSD.  Mr. Justice Rogers assessed non-pecuniary damages of $90,000 and then made a modest reduction to take the pre-existing condition into account.  In assessing damages the Court provided the following reasons:
[32] Turning to the plaintiff’s injuries, the overall weight of the evidence paints a clear picture: before the traffic accident the plaintiff had some depression and she was sometimes anxious. The breakdown of her marriage and the emotional upheaval and fiscal uncertainty that flowed from that breakdown fuelled her depression and anxiety. Both conditions were sufficiently active as to prompt her to obtain medical attention. The plaintiff’s depression and anxiety were, therefore, present and active maladies before the accident. The plaintiff did not, however, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder or from pain in her neck, jaw and face, and the plaintiff did not suffer from migraine or neuralgic headaches. The plaintiff was not fatigued and her ability to function in everyday life was not limited in any significant way. After the accident the plaintiff does now, and will in the future continue to, suffer from myofascial pain in her face and jaw. She does, and will continue to, suffer from periodic migraine and neuralgic headaches. Her neck will be sore after physical activity. She will be fatigued and socially withdrawn. These changes in her life have deepened her depression and made her more susceptible to anxiety…




[34] That said, the plaintiff’s pain, headaches and post-traumatic stress disorder were not features of her life before the accident and there was no measurable risk that, absent the accident, they would have become features of her life. Likewise, the plaintiff’s difficulties with memory and concentration were not a problem before the accident. Although the plaintiff argued that these latter problems stemmed from a minor traumatic brain injury, I find that that they are, in fact, a product of the effect on her mentation of pain, depression and anxiety.

[35] On an overall assessment of the whole body of the evidence at trial, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary damages should be reduced by a relatively modest amount in order to accurately reflect her pre-existing emotional condition. I fix that reduction at 10 percent of the total.

[36] I find that were it not for her pre-existing condition, I would have fixed the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $90,000. I find that after subtracting the pre-existing condition, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for general damages of $81,000.





This judgement is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of principle of adverse inference.  The Plaintiff did not call her family physician in support of her claim.  ICBC argued that the Court should draw an adverse inference as a result.  Mr. Justice Rogers refused to do so and in dismissing ICBC’s argument the Court provided the following comments:
[31] I also accept the opinions of the plaintiff’s medical treaters. I am not worried about the lack of evidence from the plaintiff’s family physician. It was he who referred the plaintiff to specialists, and it was those specialists who diagnosed and treated the plaintiff’s accident-caused symptoms. The family physician’s evidence would, in my view, likely have consisted of little more than confirmation that the specialists were engaged and progress was made under their care. As such, I am confident that the family physician’s evidence would have added little new into the mix.

Non-Pecuniary Damages Update – the Kelowna Road Edition

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Dental Injury Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, Uncategorized. 51 Comments on Non-Pecuniary Damages Update – the Kelowna Road Edition


I’m writing today’s non-pecuniary damages case update in Kelowna, BC where I’m finishing up some work on a handful of ICBC claims.
Reasons for judgement were released earlier this week by the BC Supreme Court awarding non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) for headaches and chronic pain following soft tissue and TMJ injuries.
In this week’s case (Ho v. Dosanjh), the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 BC motor vehicle collision.   It was a rear-end crash and the Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained over $7,000 in damage.   The Plaintiff’s injuries continued to cause him problems by the time of trial (nearly 4 years after the collision).  Mr. Justice Silverman awarded the Plaintiff $75,000 for his non-pecuniary loss and in reaching this figure the Court noted the following about the extent and severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries:

[21]         As a result of the subject MVA, the plaintiff suffered pain in his neck, upper back, shoulder, jaw, numbness down the left arm, headaches, and insomnia.  He was on a variety of medications for a period of time and was unable to work.

[22]         The most serious and ongoing consequences of the MVA are the TMJ and the headaches, which leave him in constant pain.

[23]         Dr. Mehta confirmed that the plaintiff suffers from pain in his jaw, teeth, and  related areas, and that he suffers from headaches as a result of the MVA.

[24]         He testified that these areas of concern had not improved significantly in the four years since the MVA and further recovery was unlikely; that the plaintiff will suffer long-term symptoms that impact on all aspects of his functioning; and that he should avoid any activities that involve jumping or jarring.  Dr. Mehta recommended conservative care, including continuation of various treatments which were already ongoing, such as physiotherapy and massage.

[25]         Dr. le Nobel diagnosed the plaintiff with diffuse myofascial pain syndrome, TMJ, and chronic headaches.  He testified that the plaintiff’s capacity for recreational pursuits has been compromised and that this will continue for the foreseeable future.  He testified that, given the amount of time that has passed since the MVA, there is unlikely to be any further improvement.

[26]         Dr. Weiss confirmed that the plaintiff has chronic neck, back, and TMJ pain and that, in his opinion, “they will remain a long term issue.”  He noted that the plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative condition, which made him more susceptible to injury from the MVA.

[27]         Dr. Gilbart provided an independent medical report and was called as a witness for the defence.  He confirmed that the MVA aggravated the plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative condition in his neck.  He opined that the “prognosis for significant further improvement in his symptoms at this point is guarded.”  He noted that the plaintiff was asymptomatic prior to the MVA and was functioning at a very high level in all aspects of his life.  Dr. Gilbart also noted that, despite the post-MVA pain complained of by the plaintiff, he still appeared to be functioning at a very high level.  Finally, he opined that, given the pre-existing condition of the plaintiff as well as his prior history, he likely would have had flare-ups in the future even if the MVA had not occurred.

[28]          With respect to the jaw pain and headaches, Dr. Gilbart deferred to the expertise of Dr. Mehta.

[29]         Presently, the plaintiff has not returned to most of his pre-MVA athletic activities.  He no longer is involved in volleyball, softball, aggressive hiking, or skiing.  He does still rollerblade, although not as aggressively as before, and he has recently begun to swim with the encouragement of his girlfriend, who is a physiotherapist’s assistant.

[30]         Various friends testified that the plaintiff’s personality has changed.  He is moody, irritable, withdrawn, quiet, rarely socializes, and not as pleasant to spend time with as he used to be.  It was clear to me, when watching the plaintiff in the gallery of the courtroom that he was distressed when he heard this testimony.  He subsequently testified that he had not actually heard these witnesses say this before…

76]         I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered neck, back, jaw, and shoulder pain, and that he continues to suffer on a daily basis, particularly from TMJ and headaches.

[77]         I am satisfied that it has affected his recreational and athletic activities, which were an important part of his life.

[78]         I am satisfied that there is unlikely to be much further improvement.

[79]         I am also satisfied that, while he is suffering pain, he is nevertheless able to function in a reasonably normal way.  He certainly appeared to be reasonably comfortable when giving evidence.  He also continued to work full-time after a period of months during which he was unable to work, although I accept that work is much less physically comfortable for him than it used to be.

[80]         While I accept the evidence that he might have suffered another flare-up even in the absence of the MVA, I am satisfied that the MVA was, and is, the primary cause of his current difficulties.

[81]         With respect to ongoing treatments for the rest of his life, I am satisfied that, while these might provide him with some periodic temporary relief, they are not likely to result in any improvement.  Consequently, what the plaintiff might perceive as the “need” for such ongoing treatments, will be reflected as an aspect of the non-pecuniary award.

[82]         In all the circumstances, I award $75,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

$50,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Neck/Low Back Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 53 Comments on $50,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Neck/Low Back Soft Tissue Injuries

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, dealing with the fair assessment of damages for chronic soft tissue injuries.
In today’s case (Baxter v. Jamal) the Plaintiff was involved in a ‘substantial‘ 2005 motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff was in her vehicle in an intersection waiting to turn left.  The Defendant “ran a red light and struck the driver’s side door of the plaintiff’s vehicle“.
Despite feeling no pain at the time of the accident the Plaintiff in fact was injured.  Her symptoms came on shortly after the crash and some of them persisted to the time of trial.   In awarding $50,000 for the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) Madam Justice Boyd stated as follows:
[18] Dr. Witherspoon and Dr. Rosemary Nairne Stewart, a physiatrist who conducted an independent medical examination on behalf of the plaintiff in February 2009, both opine the plaintiff has suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and back.  Since more than three years have passed since the injury, they expect she will continue to experience her current symptoms over the long term and that as a result, she will likely be unable to do physically demanding work.  ..

I am satisfied that pre-accident, the plaintiff was asymptomatic and that since the accident, she has unfortunately been plagued by ongoing neck and back pain which now remain unresolved over four years since the accident.  I accept Dr. Nairne Stewart’s opinion that her condition is either the reflection of the soft tissue injuries (suffered at the time of the accident) which remain unresolved or are the result of the trauma to her back (suffered at the time of the accident), which has rendered a previously asymptomatic condition symptomatic.

[34] I accept Dr. Nairne Stewart’s evidence concerning the plaintiff prognosis, namely that she is “likely to continue to experience all of her current symptoms and limitations over the long term.  She will be unable to do physically demanding work because of her injury.  In sedentary work, she will continue to need a good ergonomic setup in her workstation and the flexibility to change her work tasks and position periodically throughout her workday”.

[35] I accept that these injuries have had a significant effect on the plaintiff’s life, both in terms of her career and her recreational activities. ..

[43] On a revinew of all of the evidence, and considering the significant impact these injuries have had and will continue to have on this young woman, I find that an appropriate award of damages is $50,000.

An interesting part of this decision dealt with the Court’s analysis of the competing medical evidence.  As is common in ICBC Injury Claims the Defence called the evidence of an ‘independent medical examiner’ (orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Maloon) who provided an opinion contrary to the Plaintiff’s treating physician with respect to the extent of the accident related injuries.  The court noted that Dr. Maloon’s competing opinion was ‘obliquely stated‘ and ultimately preferred the evidence of the Plaintiff’s doctors.  This case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of the competing expert evidence and the analysis of the Court in favouring the expert evidence in support of the Plaintiff’s case.


Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries Discussed

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

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering the value of chronic soft tissue injuries following a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Harris v. Zabaras) the Plaintiff was injured in a pretty forceful rear-end collision involving two pick up trucks.  Fault for the crash was admitted leaving the Court to focus on the extent and value of injuries and loss.
The Plaintiff suffered from soft tissue injuries to his neck and upper back in the collision.  The injuries, while they improved somewhat by the time of trial, were expected to have some lasting consequences.  In assessing the non-pecuniary damages at $50,000 Madam Justice Schultes provided the following analysis:
[66] Adjusted to current dollars, a guide to the range of awards for soft tissue injuries accompanied by emotional problems such as sleep disruption, nervousness or depression is approximately $42,000 – $150,000: Unger v. Singh, 2000 BCCA 94 at para. 32…

[68] When characterizing the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries for the purposes of non-pecuniary damages, I do not think it is helpful to attempt to choose between the labels of “mild” and “mild to moderate” that have been offered by two of the medical witnesses. At the end of the day, what is important is the pain the plaintiff experiences as a result of the injuries and how that impacts his life.

[69] In that regard, while there has been some reduction in the frequency of the plaintiff’s headaches, he remains subject to neck and left arm pain whenever he undertakes strenuous physical activity. As Dr. Travlos put it, “he will generally pay the consequences for doing such activities”.

[70] The extent of his resulting disability is that he must either avoid strenuous physical activity or divide it into more manageable chunks that will not provoke symptoms. This compromises his ability to engage fully in the recreational building or maintenance activities that have previously been a source of pleasure to him and in turn has led to a level of depression in the face of his more limited prospects.

[71] Even if he is able to relieve his symptoms somewhat through the steps that have been recommended to him, the consensus of medical opinion is that they will persist.

[72] However I note that the plaintiff speaks of being unable for the most part to engage in these activities any longer whereas Dr. Travlos has encouraged him to continue to be as active as possible, bearing in mind that his capacity for working continuously will be reduced and that he will experience pain as a result.

[73] This relates to Dr. Devonshire’s observation that the plaintiff may be over-rating his pain, because he has not required any “significant analgesia” ( by which I think she means prescription- level painkillers) to control it.

[74] While I am satisfied that the physical symptoms that the plaintiff, his wife and the Grieves have described are genuine, he nevertheless appears to view them as imposing somewhat greater limitations on his physical activities than may actually be the case.

[75] Perhaps the fairest way to characterize the effect of his symptoms is that they place meaningful restrictions on his ability to pursue strenuous physical activities in the manner and to the extent that he previously did…

[79] Taking into account all of the circumstances and the authorities, I think that an award of $50,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in this case. In arriving at this amount I am mindful of the fact that the award in Hanna, when adjusted to current dollars, falls within a similar range, even though it involved a brachial plexus injury. The effect on the plaintiff in that case however, was quite similar to the plaintiff’s situation, so I do not think that diagnosis in itself limits its applicability.

The Plaintiff’s damages were reduced by 10% for failing to take some steps which could have improved his accident related symptoms.  The court’s discussion of ‘failure to mitigate’ set out at paragraphs 80-88 of the reasons for judgement are worth reviewing for a quick introduction to this area of personal injury law.

$70,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages for Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries

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

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court Awarding damages as a result of a BC Car Crash.
In today’s case, (KT v. AS) The Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision while seated as a passenger in 2005.  It was a significant intersection collision.  The Plaintiff was 17 years old at the time.  The Plaintiff claimed that she suffered both physical and psychological injuries as a result.
Madam Justice Ballance largely rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for accident related psychological injuries but did accept the claim for physical injuries.  In awarding the Plaintiff $70,000 in non-pecuniary damages the Court summarized the Plaintiff’s accident related physical injuries as follows:

[210]     According to the plaintiff, since the accident she has felt an ache along with tightness and sore muscles in her low back.  She says that every few weeks the pain is so intense that she keels over.  She testified that in the first six months or so following the accident, her neck and muscles were stiff and knotted, particularly when her head was bent.  Her headaches would follow at least once per week, building up slowly from the back of her neck.  At times they lasted an entire day.  Unlike the headaches that she experienced prior to the accident, eating did not alleviate the pain in her head.  Also within the initial six months time frame, the plaintiff said she would feel a sharp pinching sensation in her upper back/trapezius area a few times each month that seemed to come out of nowhere.  She testified that at her last appointment with Dr. Smith roughly 22 months post-accident,  her neck was still stiff and she was still experiencing intermittent sharp pinching pain in her shoulder blade/trapezius area.  Her low back continued to produce a dull ache most of the time that fluctuated considerably in intensity depending on her activity.

[211]     The plaintiff says that she has not had a pain-free day since the accident.  In terms of her current symptoms, the plaintiff claims that her low back pain, of variable intensity, persists and is her dominant problem.  Physical activities such as soccer, jogging and extensive walking, climbing up or descending stairs can cause a flare-up of pain.  However, the postures that are most aggravating are those which appear to be innocuous, such as sitting and static standing for prolonged periods.

[212]     The plaintiff also continues to experience episodic pain in her neck and upper trapezius area.  She claims that the jabs of pain in her shoulder blade area have become infrequent, flaring up roughly once per month.  Although she still suffers headaches, especially when she sits down for long periods to study, they have substantially diminished in their frequency.  Her hips and “upper butt” area have not caused her difficulty for a very long time.

[213]     The defence concedes that the plaintiff sustained mild to moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck and back.  As to her low back injury, the defendants assert that, at most, the accident caused a temporary aggravation of an “ongoing injury process” due to her pre-existing injuries and core weakness.  It should be evident from my discussion of the expert medical evidence and, specifically, my disapproval of Dr. Hepburn’s opinion, that I find the evidence does not support the defendants’ position that the plaintiff’s current low back pain is basically the same as the dysfunction in her upper “butt” sacroiliac joint or hip regions experienced before the accident.

[214]     The evidence amply establishes that the accident caused musculoskeletal injuries to the plaintiff’s neck, upper trapezius (left shoulder area) and her lumbar spine.  Relying on Dr. Hershler, Dr. Jung and Ms. Cross, I also find that it is more probable than not that the accident injured the facet joints of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine.  I find, as well, that it caused her headaches secondary to her neck pain, injured her left sacroiliac joint and aggravated her pre-accident difficulty with the right side of that joint.  On balance, I am not persuaded that she suffered a costovertebral injury as opined by Dr. Jung.

Another interesting aspect of this decision was the Court’s discussion of the Defence Medical Evidence.  The Defence hired Dr. Hepburn, a retired orthopaedic surgeon, to conduct a so-called ‘independent medical exam‘ of the Plaintiff.  Madam Justice Ballance largely rejected this expert’s evidence and in doing so made the following critical comments:

191]     Since his retirement in 2007, Dr. Hepburn’s medical practice has been solely devoted to conducting independent medical examinations.  Virtually every referral examination he receives comes from defence counsel and ICBC.

[192]     By his own admission, a mere 10%-15% of Dr. Hepburn’s practice prior to his retirement involved soft tissue injuries, and even then he was not involved in their ongoing management and treatment.  Dr. Hepburn testified that, while in practice, he did not treat patients with back injuries who had not suffered a fracture, slipped disc, disc prolapse or other type of injury requiring surgical intervention.  Generally, he would not even see such patients and would typically refer them to a specialist better trained to treat ongoing non-orthopaedic soft tissue injuries, such as a physiotherapist and physiatrist.

[193]     Dr. Hepburn could not recollect treating any costovertebral joint injuries, and testified that he only treated orthopaedic facet joint injuries (dislocations and fractures) for which surgery can produce some benefit.

[194]     As Dr. Hepburn testified, it became apparent that, although he was qualified as an expert in the diagnosis and prognosis of soft tissue injuries, his expertise lies almost exclusively in the field of orthopaedics.  This, however, is not an orthopaedic case.  It is a claim involving chronic soft tissue injuries which cannot be repaired through surgical intervention.

[195]     The plaintiff told Dr. Hepburn that her major problem related to her low back.  She also complained of pain in her left shoulder, a stiff neck, and headaches.  Dr. Hepburn agreed that the plaintiff likely suffered some soft tissue injury to her neck and knee from the accident.  However, he found it unclear as to whether her lower back pain was connected to the accident.  In this regard, he seemed to place some reliance on his understanding that there had been no complaint of back pain noted in the plaintiff’s medical records in the months following the accident.  That is a misconception.  The physiotherapy records are replete with the plaintiff’s complaints of low back pain in the months immediately after the accident.  The treating physiotherapist’s discharge note, which formed part of Dr. Smith’s file, leaves no doubt that the plaintiff’s lumbar spine was the chief area of treatment throughout the many sessions.  I can only conclude that Dr. Hepburn’s review of those records was superficial.

[196]     As an aside I would also note that the plaintiff’s controversial ICBC statement tendered into evidence by the defence itself refers to complaints of low back pain within the first two weeks following the accident.

[197]     In addressing the plaintiff’s pre-accident physical difficulties, Dr. Hepburn seemed to suggest that it would be legitimate to interpret her physiotherapist’s notations of sacroiliac joint pain as being medically equivalent to a notation of unspecified low back pain.  The implicit suggestion was that the plaintiff’s post-accident low back pain is the same as her sacroiliac joint complaints before the accident and, accordingly, was not caused by the accident.  He went so far to say that, in all likelihood, the plaintiff actually had low back pain and not sacroiliac joint dysfunction when she saw her physiotherapist before the accident.  I have previously made clear that I reject the free-floating notion that a physiotherapist would confuse those distinct anatomical areas.  His evidence on this point distinguished Dr. Hepburn from the other medical experts who gave evidence on the point.  It caused me considerable concern.

[198]     I also found it strange that in his report, Dr. Hepburn described the plaintiff’s headache complaints as falling beyond his area of expertise.  The preponderance of all of the other medical opinion evidence, which I find credible, is that the plaintiff’s post-accident headaches probably stem from her injured neck.  In his report, Dr. Hepburn did not allow for the prospect that the plaintiff’s headaches could be cervicogenic in origin, and represented referred pain from her injured neck.  He was only prepared to admit that potential in cross-examination.  Instead, in his report he had implied that the plaintiff’s headaches had a psychological source by suggesting that they could be addressed by medication for anxiety.  In my view, Dr. Hepburn’s assessment of the plaintiff’s ongoing headaches was not evenly balanced.  That too was of concern.

[199]     Dr. Hepburn did not find a restricted range of movement in the plaintiff’s spine.  He explained that the dual inclinometer applied by Dr. Jung is not used by him or any orthopaedic surgeon to his knowledge.  That does not mean that measurement with that device is not the gold standard.  I was most impressed with Dr. Jung’s explanation of the frailties of the so-called “eyeballing” assessment of range of motion and the superior measurement capability of the device he used.

[200]     Dr. Hepburn was adamant that the manner in which Dr. Jung and Dr. Hershler purported to diagnose a potential facet joint injury was not adequate.  He testified that a definitive diagnosis cannot be made without proper imaging studies such as a bone scan, CT scan or MRI.  He stood by his opinion that there was no facet joint injury that he could detect on his examination of the plaintiff.  Dr. Hepburn’s comments regarding the diagnosis of facet joint injury illustrates the difference between the medical approach to diagnosis for the purposes of determining causation, and the legal approach to the question of causation.  As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311, [Snell ] at para. 34:  “Medical experts ordinarily determine causation in terms of certainties whereas a lesser standard is demanded by the law.”

[201]     With respect to Dr. Jung’s diagnosis of costovertebral injury, Dr. Hepburn opined that such an injury is quite rare and would normally be associated with severe trauma such as in an individual with broken ribs.  He suggested that it would take a “divine talent” to diagnose this type of injury based on physical/clinical presentation alone.

[202]     Relying on Dr. Hepburn’s opinion, the defence argues that the plaintiff’s subjective pain complaints which have continued for more than four years after the accident are inconsistent with the fact that her spine has suffered no structural damage or other ominous pathology.  The underlying logic appears to be that pain and chronic injury do not occur in the absence of orthopaedic or other structural injury.  That notion offends common sense and is blind to the credible explanations given by Drs. Jung and Hershler and Ms. Cross as to the nature of soft tissue injury.

[203]     In the end, I consider it unsafe to give any weight to the opinions expressed by Dr. Hepburn.

Useful Insight into Cross-Examination in an ICBC Brain Injury Claim

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Brain Injury Cases, ICBC Dizziness Cases, ICBC Head Injury Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, Uncategorized.

When involved in an ICBC Injury Claim it is natural to want to know what the trial experience can be like. The best way to experience what the Court process is like is to actually attend a live trial and watch the evidence play out before you.  This is easy enough to do, particularly in larger centres around the Province, like in Vancouver or New Westminster, as an injury trial is occurring on almost any given day.
If you can’t do this you can read past court judgements to get a feel for the ways these claims can proceed at trial.  While this is not nearly as enlightening as witnessing a live trial some useful insight can still be gleaned.  If you are looking for a court judgement giving insight into the court process Reasons for judgement were released today reproducing extensive portions of a Plaintiff’s cross examination in an ICBC Brain Injury Claim that are worth reviewing in full.
In today’s case (Trevitt v. Tobin) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 Motorcycle Accident in Surrey, BC.    The Defendant pulled into the Plaintiff’s line of travel while making a left hand turn.  The Defendant ultimately conceded the issue of fault.
The trial focused on the injuries the Plaintiff had the the appropriate award for compensation.  The Plaintiff alleged that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and as a result would suffer a serious ongoing disability.  The Plaintiff sought over $1.5 million dollars in total damages.
The Plaintiff’s claim with respect to his injuries and the extent of disability was largely rejected with Mr. Justice McEwan finding that “the physical evidence does not account for a head injury or concussion“.  In the end the Court found that the Plaintiff suffered from “general bruising and shaking up in the accident” and following a setback in his career ambitions he suffered from “ongoing difficulties with headaches, tinnitus and some balance issues“.  The Court found that these issues were ongoing by the time of trial (some 5 years later).  The Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) was valued at $60,000.
The Court heard from many very qualified physicians who gave opinion evidence with respect to the Plaintiff’s medical condition.  As is often the case in ICBC Injury Claims the court heard competing expert evidence from physicians called by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.  In determining which experts had the more useful evidence Mr. Justice McEwan pointed out that “what any given doctor ‘believes’ is only helpful to the extent taht the underlying information is plausible by the standards of the court“.
To this end, the The Plaintiff’s credibility and reliability were put squarely at issue in this trial.    The Defence lawyer argued that credibility was central to this case and engaged in an extensive cross examination relating to the Plaintiff’s credibility as a witness.  Portions of this cross examination are set out in paragraphs 15-18 and these give good insight into what cross-examination can be like in Injury Litigation.   Ultimately Mr. Justice McEwan held that the plaintiff gave some “unusual” and “inconsistent” evidence and that “he quite clearly cannot be relied upon for the accuracy of his observations about his condition“.

Can an ICBC Tort Claim be Worth Less for Not Going to the Doctor Regularly?

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

Perhaps with the exception of the “failure to mitigate defence” the frequency of medical appointments attended by a plaintiff is not necessarily tied to the value of an ICBC tort claim.  The value of a claim is largely tied to the severity of injuries and the impact of the injuries on a persons life.  As a matter of common sense one would expect a Plaintiff with very severe injuries to receive more extensive medical intervention than a Plaintiff with relatively minor injuries.  In this sense there may be an indirect connection between the value of a claim and the number of medical treatments.  However, the number of doctor’s visits does not in and of itself add value to an ICBC tort claim and reasons for judgement were released today exploring this area of the law.
In today’s case (Brock v. King) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 T-Bone collision in Burnaby, BC.  The Court found that the Plaintiff suffered various injuries and in awarding $50,000 for her pain and suffering summarized the injuries as follows:
I find that the plaintiff continues to suffer from back pain, neck pain and headaches. These injuries continue to interfere with her work and her daily activities. It appears that some further improvement may occur but that some level of ongoing chronic pain is probable.
The Defence Lawyer argued that the Plaintiff’s injuries were not all that serious and in support of this conclusion drew the court’s attention to the fact that “there were large gaps in treatment and medical visits“.
Mr. Justice Punnett rejected this submission and in doing so summarized some of the principles courts consider in tort claims when reviewing the frequency and nature of post accident medical treatment.  The key discussion was set out at paragraphs 58-65 which I set out below:

[58]         The defendants place significant emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff had relatively little in the way of treatment, that there were no referrals to any specialists, that there was limited therapy, that there were large gaps in treatment and medical visits, little in the way of prescription medication and that there were no diagnostic examinations arranged by the family physicians.

[59]         The defendants rely on Mak v. Eichel, 2008 BCSC 1102, and Vasilyev v. Fetigan, 2007 BCSC 1759, in support of their position on the issue of gaps in the plaintiff’s reporting to her physician and the inference to be drawn. In Mak v. Eichel there appeared to be a gap in treatment with no evidence that the discomfort continued during that period and inVasilyev v. Fetigan there were credibility issues. As a result both cases are distinguishable.

[60]         The plaintiff relies on Travis v. Kwon, 2009 BCSC 63, and Myers v. Leng, 2006 BCSC 1582. In both cases there were gaps in the plaintiffs’ attendance on their physicians. InTravis v. Kwon, Mr. Justice Johnston states at paras. 74 and 77:

[74]      …Where a plaintiff gives credible evidence at trial, and is not significantly contradicted by entries in medical records or otherwise, the absence of a full documentary history of medical attendances it not that important.

[77]      In this case the plaintiff is generally credible, and I do not fault her for a commendable desire to avoid making a nuisance of herself by going to a doctor primarily in order to build a documentary records and thus avoid the risk of an adverse inference from failing to do so, or out of a misguided belief that by papering her medical files, she can prove her claim. A sensible plaintiff, having some knowledge of the medical system and its capabilities from her training, would be better advised to go to the doctor only when necessary, and thus avoid accusations that she is exaggerating, or suffering from what some authorities have referred to as “chronic benign pain syndrome”: Moon v. Zachary, [1984] B.C.J. No. 241, 1984 CarswellBC 2000, at para. 100.

[61]         In Myers v. Leng Madam Justice Gropper stated at para. 50:

[50]      I am not troubled by the gap in the plaintiff seeking treatment. His decision not to continue to see a doctor about his neck and back complaints was clearly based on a reasonable conclusion that the doctors could only provide temporary relief from the pain by prescribing medication and physiotherapy. The plaintiff did not consider either to be helpful. It is a sensible and practical approach to medical treatment. If continuous medical treatment can cure you, or make you feel better, then it is worthwhile to attend on a regular basis. If it cannot, there really is no point in taking the doctor’s time. The purpose of a seeing a doctor is not to create a chronicle of complaints for the purpose of proving that you have ongoing pain from an injury arising from a motor-vehicle accident. Rather than detract from the accuracy of the plaintiff‘s complaint, I consider the plaintiff‘s course of conduct, in not seeing the doctor on a continuous basis, to enhance his evidence.

[62]         Mrs. Brock testified that she is not sure if the physiotherapy helped that much and sometimes it increased her pain. Likewise she indicated that she did not like taking prescriptions and preferred to avoid medications other than Tylenol or Advil. She was told to exercise daily doing stretching and other exercises which she did.

[63]         I accept that she was aware that her doctor really could not do much more for her than he had already done. Given that, it made sense not to keep raising her injuries with him on a regular basis or, indeed, each time she visited with him.

[64]         The defendants also argued that the fact that Dr. Nakamara did not order further tests or investigations relating to the neck and back injuries while doing so for an earlier knee injury and a sprained thumb indicates that the neck and back injuries could not have been viewed by him as serious.

[65]         The defendants did not call Dr. Nakamara for the purposes of cross examination on his report. They are asking that the court infer the medical reasons for the lack of a more extensive investigation of the plaintiff’s injuries. That is a medical decision and not one for the court to make. It is likely more probable that he did not order more extensive investigations because in his opinion they were not required. He notes in his report that there was no structural damage. I decline to accept the defendants’ submission on this point.

BC Personal Injury Claims Round Up

Written by admin on . Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Headache Cases, ICBC Whiplash Cases, Uncategorized. 4 Comments on BC Personal Injury Claims Round Up

On Friday two more cases were released by the BC Supreme Court dealing with non-pecuniary damages which  I summarize below to add to this Pain and Suffering database.
The first case (Macki v. Gruber) dealt with a bus accident.   The Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a Greyhound bus in Duncan, BC.  Liability was contested but the Greyhound bus driver was found 100% at fault for the accident.  Paragraphs 1-60 of the case deal with the issue of fault and are worth reviewing for Mr. Justice Metzger’s discussion of credibility.  In finding the Defendant at fault the Court found that he was “careless” and that he “lied” and his evidence was rejected in all areas that it was in “conflict with the testimony of any other witness“.
The Plaintiff suffered various injuries, the most serious of which neck pain, headaches and upper back pain.  She was diagnosed with a chronic pain syndrome.  Mr. Justice Metzger assessed her non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 and in doing summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries and their effect on her life as follows:

[144] I find the chronic pain has made Ms. Mackie reclusive and morose. She has gone from a “bubbly, fun-loving, outgoing, social, interesting” person, to someone who is  anti-social, with bouts of depression and sadness. From the evidence of the plaintiff and Ms. Garnett, I find that the plaintiff defines herself as a very hardworking woman, but that the chronic pain prevents her exhibiting her previous commitment to work.

[145] This loss of enjoyment of life and identity is given considerable weight.

[146] I am satisfied the plaintiff is resilient and stoic by nature, and I do not doubt the extent of her pain and suffering. She has endured a regime of injections in order to retain some of her employment capacity. Plaintiffs are not to receive a lesser damage award because of their stoicism.

[147] I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s injuries and ongoing limitations are more like those cited in the plaintiff’s authorities and therefore I award her $75,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

In the second case released on Friday (Dhillon v. Ashton) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 separate rear-end collisions.  Both claims were heard at the same time and fault was admitted leaving the court to deal with the sole issue of damages.

Madam Justice Ross found that the Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries in each of the 2 accidents.  She awarded non-pecuniary damages in total of $25,000 for both collisions.

In assessing an award of $15,000 for non-pecuniary damages for the first accident the Court summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows:

[60]         I find that Mr. Dhillon suffered soft tissue injury to his neck, right shoulder and low back in the First MVA. He suffered from headaches arising from this injury, but these resolved in a relatively short period of time. The injury to the right shoulder had essentially resolved by mid-May 2005. I find, consistent with Dr. Sandhu’s report that Mr. Dhillon was unable to work as a result of his injuries from the time of the First MVA to mid-May 2005 and then continued to suffer partial disability at work until July 2005. By July 2005 he was able to return to work without limitation. I find that his injuries from the First MVA were essentially resolved by October 2005, except for intermittent pain, consistent with Dr. Sandhu’s report. From October 2005 until the time of the First Workplace Accident, Mr. Dhillon required the use of pain medication for low back pain that was the consequence of both his prior condition and lingering consequences of the First MVA.

[61]         In the result, I find that Mr. Dhillon suffered mild to moderate soft tissue injury from the First MVA with the symptoms most significant in the first three months following the injury; with some ongoing problems for the next five months and intermittent pain thereafter. I find the appropriate amount for non-pecuniary damages for the First MVA to be $15,000.00.

In assessing non-pecuniary damages of $10,000 for the second accident Madam Justice Ross summarized the injuries it caused as follows:

[64]         I find that Mr. Dhillon suffered soft tissue injuries in the Second MVA that resulted in an exacerbation of his injuries to his neck, shoulder, and low back. He had returned to work following the Second Workplace Accident before the Second MVA, but was not able to work after this accident. He required physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment and pain medication for both the continuing injuries from the Workplace Accidents, an apparent recurrence or continuation of the right side back problem first noted in 2000, and the Second MVA. Mr. Dhillon was able to return to work part-time in November 2006 and full-time in January 2007. He requires some accommodation from his employer in terms of his duties. He continues to experience pain and requires medication to control his pain. I find that the Second MVA plays some role, albeit a minimal one, in Mr. Dhillon’s continuing symptoms, the other more significant contributors being the original complaint of low back pain, and the two Workplace Accidents.

[65]         In the circumstances, I find that $10,000.00 is an appropriate award for non-pecuniary loss for the Second MVA