In reasons for judgement released today Mr. Justice Holmes awarded an injured Plaintiff a total of $8,500 in damages as a result of injuries sustained in a 2005 BC car accident that occurred in 100 Mile House.
The Plaintiff was a passenger at the time. His wife was driving. The vehicle left the roadway and rolled onto its roof. Liability for the accident was admitted by ICBC but the issue of damages was contested.
The Plaintiff led medical evidence that he suffered from ‘mechanical lower back pain’ amongst other injuries as a result of this crash. He advanced a ‘significant claim of loss of earning capacity’.
The cause of the Plaintiff’s back pain was at issue at trial. The court largely rejected the Plaintiff’s claim and found that the Plaintiff had pre-existing back pain which was exacerbated as a result of the collision. The court found that the Plaintiff’s exacerbation ‘either resolved or significantly diminished within a few months of the accident. The Plaintiff’s more serious complaints of back pain and spasm did not occur until months later…‘
The court summarized its findings at paragraph 48 as follows:
 I do however accept the plaintiff did receive some injury in the motor vehicle accident of November 15, 2005. That injury was an exacerbation of a long-standing pre-existing back injury, and he is entitled to non-pecuniary damages for the exacerbation injury which I consider was resolved within approximately a year of the November 15, 2005 motor vehicle accident. He was restricted for a month or two following the accident in his ability to lift weights and for several months on a diminishing or sporadic basis and he was troubled by prolonged sitting or immobility. Treatment was by continuing chiropractic and exercise. He was able to perform his work and operate his business with minimal interference. I assess the plaintiff’s damages at $8,500, inclusive of minimal interference with earning ability or loss of business income.
The Plaintiff did not call his treating chiropractor and his family physician to give evidence. The court was critical of this and it appears that this was a main factor which fueled the court’s decision. The court highlighted this fact as follows:
 I conclude the plaintiff has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the back pain he experienced after commencing the above-ground work in erecting the towers commencing in the fall of 2006 was caused or contributed to by injury he received in the motor vehicle accident of November 15, 2005.
 Neither Dr. Carson, the chiropractor, nor Dr. Geerts, the family physician, gave evidence or tendered reports despite the very contentious causation issue in this action. Dr. Carson’s records recording the plaintiff’s history and the treatment he received were highly contradictory to the plaintiff’s evidence and the explanations of the plaintiff make no sense even with allowance that he is a poor historian.
 I conclude the plaintiff had an existing problem of back pain, symptomatic at the date of the motor vehicle accident, for which he was receiving chiropractic treatments prior to the subject motor vehicle accident of November 15, 2005. I accept the motor vehicle accident exacerbated that pre-existing condition for a period of time, and the symptoms were manifested when lifting weight and by postural discomfort caused from prolonged sitting or immobility.
If you are advancing and ICBC claim and have pre-existing injuries it is a good idea to consider calling your treating doctor to give evidence to explain your pre and post accident status to the court. Failing to do so may result in an ‘adverse inference’ where the court may conclude that your treating doctor would have given evidence damaging to your case.