Tag: myofacial pain

Chronic Myofascial Pain Found to be “Minor Injury” for BC Crash Victim

Written by ERIK MAGRAKEN on May 19, 2023. Posted in BC Civil Resolution Tribunal, ICBC Minor Injury Caps.

For two years BC crash victims were subject to the “minor injury” scheme. Basically a law labelling that most injuries are minor. Many British Columbians were surprised to find out that most injuries are labelled minor under this law despite common understanding of the word meaning otherwise. That’s legal drafting and defining in action. Legislative trickery. Words don’t always mean what you think they do, they mean what the government defined them to.

The constitutionality of the Civil Resolution Tribunal, the body given power to decide if injuries are ‘minor’, was in flux for years. With more legal clarity now determinations are being made. This week one of the first minor injury determinations was handed down with the Tribunal finding that an applicant’s chronic myofascial pain was caught by the broad BC Government definition of ‘minor injury’.

In the recent case (Silver v. All-West Heritage Glass Ltd.) the applicant was injured in a 2020 crash that the Defendant was at fault for. The crash caused chronic injury to the Plaintiff’s shoulder that continued to trouble her years later and interfere with some day to day activities. Despite the chronic nature of the injury the Tribunal provided the following reasons finding they fit the definition of minor:

Hyperextension Knee Injuries from Car Crashes Discussed

Written by admin on September 30, 2009. Posted in ICBC Back Injury (soft tissue) Cases, ICBC Knee Injury Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgment were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry (Cabrera v. Sandhu), awarding a Plaintiff close to $350,000 in total damages for injuries and loss as a result of a 2003 BC Car Crash including an award of non-pecuniary damages of $60,000.
The collision occurred in Coquitlam, BC. It was a near head on collision for which the Defendant admitted fault. The issue at trial was quantum of damages (value of the Plaintiff’s claim).
The Plaintiff suffered various injuries including a “medial meniscus tear” which was stabalized through arthroscopic surgery. The Plaintiff also had a ‘partial tear of her ACL which had scarred back to her PCL” which required a second surgery to correct. The Plaintiff did not fully recover from these knee injuries by the time of trial and it was accepted that she was plateaued and “left with a significant and permanent disability.” It was also found to be probable that the Plaintiff would need further knee surgery in the future.
One of the key issues at trial was weather the knee injury was related to the collision because the Plaintiff’s knee complaints did not come until sometime after the crash. In accepting that the knee injuries were related to the crash Mr. Justice Rice accepted the evidence of the Plaintiff’s surgeon, Dr. Guy, who gave evidence that “it is common that passengers seated in the front of a car sustain knee injuries after having their foot braced against the pedal or floor board at the time of an accident. In that position, injuries occur as a result of hyper extension of the knee during the collision”
In addition to the knee injury Mr. Justice Rice found that the Plaintiff suffered from various soft tissue injuries described as a “mysofacial pain of the neck, upper and low back regions“. These injuries had ‘resolved somewhat” by the time of trial but caused occasional pain to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss was valued at $60,000 for these injuries.