Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, rejecting and outright criticizing the opinion of an expert physician who routinely is hired by ICBC for defence medical exams.
In today’s case (Moges v. Sanderson) the Plaintiff suffered injuries in three collisions. The defendants accepted fault for the crashes. The Plaintiff suffered a variety of physical and psychological injuries as a result. In the course of the lawsuit ICBC obtained a medico-legal report from a psychiatrist they routinely hire who provided opinion evidence minimizing the connection between any psychological consequences and the collisions. In rejecting this opinion evidence as being tailored to the defence and evidencing bias Madam Justice Shergill provided the following criticism:
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a chronic hip injury sustained in a collision.
In today’s case (McCann v. Anderson) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2014 vehicle collision that the Defendant accepted fault for. The Plaintiff suffered a variety of soft tissue injuries which made full recovery. More notably he also sustained a chronic hip injury which had a poor prognosis for full recovery. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $95,000 Madam Justice Shergill provided the following reasons:
 At the time of the MVC, Mr. McCann was a physically active 54-year-old man who worked at a physically demanding job without restrictions. Though he had some problems in his low back prior to the MVC, there is no evidence that the low back pain would have continued or caused him to experience problems in the future. The impact of the October 2014 MVC was substantial, and caused him significant injuries which have continued to affect his employment and recreational activities.
 Mr. McCann recovered from his soft tissue injuries to his neck, back, left shoulder and left hip within ten months of the MVC. In addition, he suffered from anxiety and depression which are partially attributable to the MVC but from which he fully recovered after approximately one year of symptoms.
 The most significant injury is to Mr. McCann’s left hip. He has been diagnosed with an inter-articular labral tear with articular cartilage disruption. His left hip injury prevented him for returning to any form of work for approximately one-and-a-half years. During that time, Mr. McCann underwent a number of investigations and tried many different treatments to try to alleviate his pain. It was not until he underwent a PRP injection in July 2016 that Mr. McCann finally began to experience long-lasting relief from his symptoms.
 Despite having returned to work at his full-time regular duties, he continues to remain symptomatic and experiences intermittent days off work (once every four to six weeks) due to his ongoing pain from the MVC.
 Prior to the MVC, Mr. McCann participated in a number of sports and outdoor activities, and was generally in good health. Mr. McCann is no longer able to participate fully in all of his pre-MVC recreational and leisure pursuits.
 Mr. McCann’s condition plateaued by March 2018. Now, over four years later, he continues to experience ongoing pain. His prognosis for significant further clinical improvement in his left hip condition is poor….
88] After considering all of the case authorities, and having regard to the evidence and the unique circumstances in this case, I assess Mr. McCann’s non-pecuniary damages at $95,000.
If you would like further information or require assistance, please get in touch.
When not writing the BC Injury Law Blog, Erik is the managing partner at MacIsaac & Company, based in Victoria, B.C. He is also involved with combative sports regulatory issues and authors the Combat Sports Law Blog.
This blog is authored by personal injury and ICBC Claims lawyer Erik Magraken. Use of the site and sending or receiving information through it does not establish a solicitor/client relationship. The views expressed and the content provided on this blog is for nonprofit educational purposes. It is not, and is not intended to be, legal advice on any specific set of facts. The use of this website does not create a solicitor-client (attorney-client) relationship. If you require legal advice, you should contact a lawyer directly.