Personal Injury Claims Are Not "Measured by the Number of Doctors Seen"
The value of a personal injury case has little to do with the number of doctor visits a Plaintiff has. I’ve discussed this topic previously. Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, further addressing this matter.
In today’s case, (Tarzwell v. Ewashina) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 motor vehicle collision. She suffered from chronic soft tissue injuries affecting her trapezius muscles and low back. The injuries were on-going at the time of trial and the Court accepted that the symptoms would linger into the future. Non-Pecuniary damages of $60,000 were awarded. Prior to arriving at this assessment Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments making it clear that the number of doctor visits does not measure the quantum of a personal injury claim:
[67] If a plaintiff’s claim was to be measured by the number of doctors seen or by the number of medical consultations attended, then that would unjustly marginalize victims such as Ms. Tarzwell. She has chosen not to burden the medical system with unnecessary visits to physicians who would give her no further advice than what she had already been provided and followed. She should not be penalized for that.
This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s comments to the lawyers involved in the litigation for their efficient use of Court time. Illustrating that meaningful claims can be litigated with little Court time Mr. Justice Dley provided the following compliments:
[5] This case was presented with uncompromising efficiency. Counsel were meticulous in focusing on those matters that were actually in dispute.
[6] The evidence was concluded in a day along with an additional half day for argument.
[7] The medical evidence consisted of two reports. There was no wasted expense by tendering marginal evidence that would have done little to assist the Court.
[8] A case that takes little time to present does not mean that damages are nominal. It is the quality and substance of the evidence that matters. Style should never trump substance.
[9] If an example of proportionality needed a model case, counsel have succeeded here in illustrating how litigation can be conducted.