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:
Reasons for judgement were released today (Romanchych v. Vallianatos) by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding just over $132,000 in total damages to a Plaintiff injured in a 2006 BC Motor Vehicle Collision.
The collision was a rear-ender on the Alex Fraser Bridge in Delta, BC. The crash was forceful enough to write off the 24 year old Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Madam Justice MacKenzie of the BC Supreme Court summarized the Plaintiff’s injuries as follows: I find on the totality of the evidence that the accident caused the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder injuries with associated headaches and jaw pain. While her symptoms improved over time, they have not resolved. She currently suffers chronic neck and shoulder pain. She can manage her pain level if she avoids aggravating her injuries by limiting her activities. The plaintiff is also vulnerable to future episodes of jaw pain. I find in favour of the plaintiff’s submission, except for small adjustments to the quantum of damages claimed.
In awarding $45,000 for the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) the court engaged in the following analysis: Conclusion on Non-Pecuniary Damages [71] On the whole, the expert opinions support a strong inference that the plaintiff’s injuries are chronic and that they will continue to affect her permanently. Given that she must limit her activities to minimize and manage her pain, the evidence shows that it is probable that her pain and resulting limitations will continue indefinitely. [72] I find on the totality of the evidence that the accident caused the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder injuries with associated headaches and jaw pain. While her symptoms have improved over time, they have not resolved. [73] I also find that the jaw symptoms which arose in August 2007 were indeed caused by the accident of July 4, 2006. I also observe that the jaw symptoms experienced in December 2006 may have been related to the accident as well. [74] Both counsel rely on the non exhaustive list of factors in Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34, 263 D.L.R. (4th) 19 at paras. 45-46. The award for general damages, will of course, vary according to the specific circumstances of the individual case, but the factors include: (a) age of the plaintiff; (b) nature of the injury; (c) severity and duration of pain; (d) disability; (e) emotional suffering; and (f) loss or impairment of life; (g) impairment of family, marital and social relationships; (h) impairment of physical and mental abilities; (i) loss of lifestyle; and (j) the plaintiff’s stoicism (as a factor that should not, generally speaking, penalize the plaintiff: Giang v. Clayton, [2005] B.C.J. No. 163, 2005 BCCA 54 (B.C. C.A.)). [75] The defendant relies upon the following cases as being reasonably analogous to this case and as supporting an award in the range of $15,000 to $22,500 for general damages: Kain v. Kirkman, 2006 BCSC 1770; Nickerson v. Allen Estate, 2006 BCSC 562; Aulakh v. Poirier, 2006 BCSC 2027, and my own decision in Moore v. Cabral, 2006 BCSC 920. However, those cases are all distinguishable from this case. [76] The plaintiff relies upon the following cases as supporting an award of $50,000 for general damages in this case: Henri v. Seo, 2009 BCSC 76; Chin v. McCabe, 2006 BCSC 1589; and Pavlovic v. Shields, 2009 BCSC 345. In my view, these cases are reasonably similar to this case and reflect analogous general damages. [77] Therefore, an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages in this case is $45,000.
One of the points of interest in this case was the courts comments on Dr. Goldstein. an oral medicine specialist, who ICBC often retains in jaw injury cases. His evidence was rejected over the Plaintiff’s treating oral medicine specialist Dr. Gardner.
Specifically, in finding bias in doctor Goldstein’s evidence, Madam Justice MacKenzie commented as follows: [66] Dr. Goldstein’s bias in favour of the defendant’s case became evident during cross-examination. His attempt under cross-examination to distance himself from the meaning of the phrase emphasized in the above quote damaged his reliability as a witness. [67] I also view Dr. Goldstein’s opinion with scepticism because he was not forthright in his report about the fact that flexion extension injury from motor vehicle accident trauma could cause jaw symptoms. Under cross-examination, counsel for the plaintiff put one of Dr. Goldstein’s own articles to him in which he noted the close correlation between TMD and motor vehicle accident trauma.