ICBC Claims and Medical Treatment; How Often Should I See My Doctor?
One common question I’m asked by people advancing ICBC injury claims is “how often should I see my doctor?“. The short answer is “as often as necessary to properly diagnose and treat your injuries“. Recovery should always be the main reason behind physicians visits, not litigation.
There is no magic number of times you need to see a doctor in order to be properly compensated for your injuries. A person who sees their doctor 100 times prior to settling may receive less than a person who only receives medical attention a handful of times. The severity and duration of injuries are some of the most important factors when valuing loss, not the number of medical treatments. Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, highlighting this.
In today’s case (Co v. Watson) the Plaintiff was involved in a “T-Bone” collision in 2006. Fault was admitted by the offending motorist. The trial focused on the value of the Plaintiff’s ICBC claim. Mr. Justice Burnyeat found that the Plaintiff suffered from shoulder pain, back pain, neck pain and some sleep disturbance. Some of the injuries improved prior to trial while other symptoms continued to bother the Plaintiff.
The Defendant argued that since the Plaintiff did not “regularly” attend to be treated by her GP that the Court should be weary of the Plaintiff’s credibility. Mr. Justice Burnyeat rejected this argument and went on to award the Plaintiff $27,500 for her non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life). In addressing the topic of frequency of medical treatment the Court stated as follows:
 Ms. Co did not regularly attend to be treated by Dr. Porten. The credibility of Ms. Co was put in questions by Mr. Watson as a result. In this regard, I adopt the following statement made in Mayenburg, supra, where Myers J. stated:
The defendants challenge the credibility of Ms. Mayenburg. They point to the limited number of times she visited physicians to complain about her pain. They also refer to the fact that she did not raise the issue of her injuries when she visited Dr. Ducholke on several occasions for other unrelated matters.
I do not accept those submissions, which have been made and rejected in several other cases: see Myers v. Leng, 2006 BCSC 1582 and Travis v. Kwon, 2009 BCSC 63. Ms. Mayenburg is to be commended for getting on with her life, rather than seeing physicians in an attempt to build a record for this litigation. Furthermore, I fail to see how a plaintiff-patient who sees a doctor for something unrelated to an accident can be faulted for not complaining about the accident-related injuries at the same time. Dr. Ducholke testified how her time with patients was limited.
In summary, Ms. Mayenburg’s complaints to her doctors were not so minimal as to cast doubt on her credibility.
(at paras. 36-38).
 Taking into account the injuries suffered by Ms. Co as a result of the accident and the duration of the suffering relating to those injuries, I assess the general damages of Ms. Co at $27,500.00.