Severe Brain Injured Car Accident Claimant has $2.9 Million Award Reduced by $350,000 on Appeal

February 6th, 2012

The injury claimant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident when a tractor-trailer struck and crushed her Volvo inside the Massey Tunnel near Delta, B.C.  She suffered extensive injuries including a severe brain injury(O’Connell v. Yung,2012 BCCA 57). The trial judge awarded more than $2.9 million in this personal injury case and ICBC, as the insurer for the defendant, appealled  the decision.

In reducing the award by $350,000 the Court of Appeal applied an arbitrary 20% discount of the future losses resulting from the car accident injury stating,

[68]         In my opinion, the trial judge erred in principle in applying Kroeker and concluding that future care costs are payable whether or not they may be incurred in the future. As the authorities I have referred to above make plain, the assessment of future care costs entails a consideration of the losses that may reasonably be expected to be required. The legal principle enunciated in Kroeker and considered in McTavish clearly does not translate to future care costs…

Read the rest of this entry »

Claimant Awarded Aggravated and Punitive Damages arising from Employers Misconduct

February 2nd, 2012

The claimant was employed as a store manager at the 28th & Main liquor store in Vancouver operated by the Liquor Distribution Branch (the “LDB”) and had worked for LDB for over 30 years. Another employee made a written complaint about the claimant and the LDB terminated the claimant’s employment without notice. The claimant won her lawsuit that she was dismissed without cause, and was entitled to damages for the defendant’s breach of contract for failure to provide reasonable notice of dismissal and  in addition was awarded aggravated and punitive damages arising from the manner of her dismissal(Vernon v. British Columbia (Liquor Distribution Branch),2012 BCSC 133).Aggravated damages are generally compensatory in nature.  In this case the claimant was a long serving faithful employee. The manner of her termination was devastating and caused her serious harm. The court awarded $35,000 in aggravated damages.  

 Unlike aggravated damages punitive damages are directed towards punishment. The leading authority remains Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 at para. 36(“Whiten”). As the judge stated, Read the rest of this entry »

Car Accident Injury Claimant’s Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Aggravated by the trauma and stress

January 26th, 2012

The injury claimant was a 32-year-old plumbing apprentice when he was seriously injured  in a head-on collision(Cassells v. Ladolcetta,2012 BCCA 27). The claimant was driving his car in the westbound centre lane of Canada Way, one of Burnaby’s major east-west connectors.  As he approached Canada Way’s uncontrolled intersection with Sprott Avenue, the other driver, intending to turn slightly left and head straight onto Sprott, drove her pickup truck into the claimant’s car. After  three weeks of trial and 19 witnesses plus 17 expert witnesses, the court found the other driver and owner solely responsible for the accident and made a substantial award against them. 

He suffered extensive soft tissue injury to his neck, thoracic and lumbar spine, right shoulder, elbow, and right knee, as well as a compression fracture in his lumbar spine, all which left him with residual symptoms that it was said he would continue to experience to some degree.  In addition, he sustained a minor frontal lobe brain impact injury and he developed what the judge found to be a subclinical post traumatic stress disorder.

 His 77-page judgment is indexed as 2009 BCSC 1151. 

    The respondent had for some time suffered from, and been treated for, skin psoriasis.  He was found to have also manifested an early indication of psoriatic arthritis.  After the accident, in time the psoriasis became particularly bad and the psoriatic arthritis became fully developed to the point that the respondent was no longer able to do the physical work of a journeyman plumber for which he had apprenticed.  The primary issue at trial was whether, and if so the extent to which, the accident had served to aggravate the respondent’s pre-existing disease.

The judge described psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis as follows:

[15]      The evidence of the medical experts explained that psoriasis is what is thought to be an auto-immune mediated skin disease that can fall anywhere on a graph between a minor nuisance to grave condition.  It is not curable, but in most cases treatment can control it, with varying degrees of success.  Most people with this condition can work and live their lives mostly unimpeded, but in some cases it can be a challenging, even debilitating, and worse, disease to live with.  Dermatologists usually treat psoriasis.

[16]      Psoriatic arthritis is a form of arthritis closely connected to psoriasis.  It is also thought to be auto-immune mediated.  Not all people with psoriasis develop psoriatic arthritis, which typically presents itself in some form within 10 years, usually in peripheral joints.  Rheumatologists treat psoriatic arthritis, so psoriatic arthritis patients consult with two specialists, one to treat the skin, the other the joints.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the claimant’s Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis was aggravated by the trauma and stress for the car accident stating: Read the rest of this entry »

Personal Injury Lawyer Entitled to Interest on Loans and Expenses From Former Client

January 24th, 2012

In this personal injury lawyer bill review case (2011 BCSC 1799) the lawyer filed an appointment for the review of the bills that he had rendered to his former client.  The client was a back seat passenger in a vehicle that was hit from the rear by another vehicle and hired the lawyer to pursue a claim for damages arising from the motor vehicle accident. She entered into a contingency fee agreement, the most pertinent provision of which is as follows:

5.   All actual disbursements and costs incurred including an opening file charge of $150.00 and a closing word processing charge of $150.00 in the prosecution of the case shall be paid by [the client] as they are billed out. Should [the client] fail to pay the accounts as rendered within 15 days of its account date, then [the client] shall pay interest on such outstanding accounts at a rate of 18 percent per annum, calculated and compounded monthly, not in advance.

The lawyer gave evidence and confirmed that at the outset the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, raised an issue as to whether the claimant ought to pursue recourse under the WCB compensation scheme.  ICBC refused to make any Part 7 payments even for prescriptions or physiotherapy that were mandated by the claimant’s physicians.   With ICBC having refused to make any Part 7 payments the claimant she asked her laywer to advance her funds which he agreed to do pursuant to the contingency fee agreement.

The personal injury lawyer advanced funds to the claimant to pay for treatment for physiotherapy and massage therapy as well as a work hardening program and, importantly, for surgery to address medical concerns with respect to her back and shoulder. Loans inclusive of interest totalled approximately $30,000.

The client, for reasons unknown, discharged the lawyer and hired another lawyer who went on the settle the case a few months later.

The Court was satisfied that the disbursements in question were all necessary and proper for the conduct of the litigation and found that there is no evidence to support that ICBC was prepared to pay these treatment expenses.

The registrar must also (per s. 73(3) [of the Legal Profession Act]) add  interest at the rate provided in the agreement and accordingly interest was recoverable by the lawyer as claimed in the sum of $11,977.02 in keeping with the terms of the contingency fee agreement.

The Court did make the following observation regarding advancing money to clients in personal injury lawsuits: Read the rest of this entry »

Car Accident injury Claimant Escapes Dismissal and ICBC gets to Change Admissions

January 16th, 2012

The injury claimant, a pedestrian, was crossing Nelson Avenue in Burnaby, B.C. when her husband was hit by a car(Arsenovski v. Bodin, 2012 BCSC 35).  The claimants husband subsequently reached a settlement with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) for compensation resulting from his injuries. The claimant, although not struck by the motor vehicle, claimed relief for the injuries suffered when she slipped on the road during the car accident.

The injury claim against ICBC remained ongoing for over 12 years by the time this application was heard.

The injury claimant initally sought no-fault medical and disability payments for her injuries from ICBC. She gave a statement through a translator about the car accident and her injuries to an ICBC adjuster. ICBC concluded, after further investigation, that the claimant provided a false statement to ICBC and initiated steps which led to her being charged with fraud.  the claimant said the translator misinterpreted her statement. The Crown stayed the fraud charge on hearing the statement had come not directly from the claimant, but from an interpreter.

The injury claimant then sued ICBC for negligent and malicious prosecution and sued two of its employees. There was serious delay in bringing this  case forward and the next step in the lawsuit against ICBC came 49 months later  when the claimant’s lawyer served a notice of intention to proceed.

In refusing to dismiss the claim the Judge was conflicted, Read the rest of this entry »

Personal Injury Claimant Wins Appeal as Other Driver Passing on the Right Illegally

January 15th, 2012

The claimant was injured in a car accident and her claim at trial was dismissed.  For reasons given orally, the judge found the claimant was totally at fault.  the claimant appealed, contending the judge was wrong and the Court of Appeal agreed. The injury claimant won her personal injury appeal (Smeltzer v. Merrison,2012 BCCA 13).

 Essentially the claimant was turning left when the other driver, passing vehicles to her right in an unmarked lane, hit into her vehicle causing the collision.  Section 158(1) on the Motor vehicle Act prohibits one vehicle passing another on the right: “The driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to overtake and pass on the right of another vehicle…”  The Judge pointed out that, “There are only three exceptions.  Essentially, passing on the right is permitted when the overtaken vehicle is turning left, when passing on a laned roadway, or when passing on a one-way street where room permits.  A “laned roadway” is defined.  It means a road that is divided into two or more marked lanes for vehicles proceeding in the same direction.  The exceptions are qualified by subsection (2) which prohibits any passing on the right when it cannot be done safely or by driving off the road.”

In finding both drivers equally at fault and sending the case back for a new trial the Court of Appeal stated:

Read the rest of this entry »

ICBC Injury Settlements and the Top Ten Mistakes Made By Car Accident Claimants

January 10th, 2012

 

I have been a personal injury lawyer in British Columbia since 1995 and am always asked to give legal advice about ICBC offers of settlement.  All too often injury claimants call me at best at the final hour or when it is too late to save a critical element of the car accident case. I certainly do not speak for every lawyer in BC when I reveal this list and  it is based on my own experience as a personal injury lawyer- so here are the top 10 mistakes ICBC injury claimants, without lawyers,  make when trying to settle a personal injury case: 

1.  Failure  to get proper legal advice- most personal injury lawyers will agree to talk with a claimant for free initially and may take the case on percentage. Find out more about how to hire a personal injury lawyer;

2.  Failure to provide the evidence required to prove a loss of opportunity to earn- Loss of income after a car accident injury can often be lost if the proper documentation is not maintained;

3.  Making an offer to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, to settle the case without verifying if the offer is reasonable-  The claimant may be making an offer that is too low without even knowing it. Understanding what can be claimed and what the case is worth before negotiation will help get the injury case settled for a reasonable sum of money;

4.  Overvaluing future loss of earnings- If a claim is being made for future loss of earnings, the law in BC requires that the amount be reduced by 2.5%. Furthermore, defendants that are insured by ICBC only have to pay net loss of income and not gross loss of income to the injury claimant; Read the rest of this entry »

Top Spinal Cord Personal Injury Lawyers Need to be Aware of Representation Agreements

January 4th, 2012

When a person  suffers a serious spinal cord injury due to a car accident it may become impossible for the claimant to physically sign over authority to trusted family members. The victim of personal injury may still be legally competent but simply cannot physically take care of their day to day living needs or take the necessary steps in their ICBC personal injury claim. In British Columbia personal injury lawyers can  help injury claimants and their families choose between Adult Guardianship and Legal Representation under the Representation Act.

A representation agreement can allow more than one person to assist. One representative can be appointed to help make decisions about routine management of financial affairs, and another can be appointed to obtain legal services and instruct a personal injury lawyer with respect to ICBC claims or other personal injury claims. There are strict limitations on who can be a representative and whether the representative can make decisions without unanimity. It’s best to hire a lawyer to draft the documents necessary for the representation agreement to be effective and valid.

The great thing about Representation Agreements is that they DO NOT deprive the injury claimant of the ability to make decisions about their ICBC personal injury case, if capable, despite a representative may have been authorized to make that same decision. The claimant maintains their legal right to make decisions and allows them to change the agreement whenever they choose. 

The following activities are considered “routine management of financial affairs”: Read the rest of this entry »

Personal Injury Award Reduced Due to Prior Back Pain and Fault for Car Accident

January 3rd, 2012

 

In this ICBC Langley personal injury claim (Shinkaruk v. Crouch,2011 BCSC 1762) a pickup truck collided with the claimant’s car in the intersection of 96th Avenue and Telegraph Trail.  The weather was clear, visibility was good and the streets were bare. The claimant’s evidence was that he pulled up to the sidewalk and looked to his left and there was only one vehicle approaching from that direction, the pickup truck that was was two or three blocks back.

The claimant had a green light and began to  move into the intersection but  the the pick-up truck sped through a red light hitting the claimant’s car.  The judge found the most probable explanation for what happened is that the claimant did not bother checking again because his light was green but if he had taken the time to look, the defendant’s pickup truck  would have been perceived by him as a hazard.  As stated by the Judge, “ However, the greater negligence, I find, rests with the defendant, who entered the intersection on a red light and who was speeding. The evidence also suggests that his rear brakes were not properly functioning.  I assess the defendant’s liability at 80%.”

The injury claimant was a 48 year old ironworker with a significant history of low back pain, including absences from work.  Eight months following the car accident the injury claimant’s family doctor assessed the claimant for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC. His orthopedic and neurological examination of the claiman’s lower back was normal and unremarkable. There was palpatory tenderness only across the thoracic spine, none across the lumbar spine and the claimant’s complaints were noted as “occasional low back pain”.

The judge awarded the injury claimant a total of $66,558.96 broken down as follows:

Pain and suffering:                    $45,000.00

Net Past Income Loss:            $20,522.95

Out-of-pocket expenses:        $  1,036.01

Posted by personal injury lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B. member of the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia