May 1st, 2012

Personal injury claimants in British Columbia should be aware of how the Courts deal with photos and videos kept at their Facebook accounts. As a personal injury lawyer in Vancouver since 1995 I have had to address privacy concerns for my personal injury clients in almost every case. With the evolution of social media, insurance companies know more than ever about injury claimant’s personal life and will often get photos and even videos of the claimant before they have a chance to change their privacy settings.
There are currently very few court cases dealing with Facebook in the context of personal injury claims in British Columbia. I did recently review a case in which the court refused to order disclosure of a claimants Facebook account information. However, in the case Fric v. Gershman, 2012 BCSC 614, the Court came to the opposite conclusion.
In the Fric case the litigant was claiming for damages resulting from injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia. At the time of the accident, the claimant was a first year law student at the University of Victoria. The claimant’s vehicle was rear-ended which caused her injuries including chronic severe headaches, injury and pain to the upper back, and neck pain. After the accident, despite her injury, the claimant engaged in various activities including trips to Thailand, Fiji, Australia, Montana, Florida, California, Seattle, Portland, and Cuba.
The claimant had some 890 Facebook “friends” who did have access to the private content of the Facebook profile. The Facebook network was used by the claimant for both personal and professional interactions. Her Facebook profile stored 759 digital photographs and one video and the claimant did not disclose the precise nature or subject matter of the Facebook photographs or video. In addition, the claimant was in possession of approximately 12,000 photographs. It was not clear on the evidence whether those photographs were stored electronically or in an old-fashioned album.
Despite her injury the claimant continued to engage in sports and other physical activities since the accident, including hiking, scuba diving and wakeboarding albeit with some pain or discomfort.
After considering many case authorities, the Court concluded that some of the claimant’s photographs, including those held on the private Facebook profile, must be disclosed. In making the order Master Bouck stated, Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Car Accident Claim, Document Discovery, Facebook disclosure, ICBC, ICBC Injury claim, New Civil Court Rules
Posted in Back Pain, ICBC Bicycle Accidents, ICBC Car Accident, ICBC Motorcycle Accident, ICBC Pedestrian Accident, ICBC Truck Accident, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Neck Pain, Soft Tissue Injury, Whiplash Claims | No Comments »
April 11th, 2012

In this Vancouver filed car accident injury claim(Sandhar v. Rolston,2012 BCSC 495) the Supreme Court of BC says that at fault driver’s are still responsible for injuries that continue after an intervening injury for which the claimant is at fault.
The claimant’s car was struck from behind by another motor vehicle and her car was pushed into another vehicle stopped in front of her. Fault was admitted and the trial proceeded on the assessment of damages. Four year after the motor vehicle accident the claimant injured her shoulder while shovelling snow which resulted in surgery. The judge found that the snow shovelling activity did not reactivate or aggravate the previous injuries, but instead caused a new injury. As that judge stated, “ I conclude the injury from the snow shovelling is divisible. It was not caused by an exacerbation of the injuries from the car accident and cannot be blamed on the defendant.”
That does not mean compensation for the injuries from the car accident is cut off from the date the injury claimant shovelled snow. The judge rightly pointed out that if the car accident injuries continued to have their effects after the shovelling injury, the at fault driver remains liable to compensate the injury claimant for those effects. See Dudek v. Li, 2000 BCCA 321.
The Court awarded the injury claimant $60,000 for pain and suffering.
Posted by Personal Injury LawyerMr. Renn A. Holness
Tags: Accident Insurance Claim, At Fault, Back Pain, Car Accident Claim, Legal Causation, Negligence, Pain and Suffering, Personal Injury lawyer, Whiplash Claims
Posted in Back Pain, How Much Money Will I Get?, ICBC Car Accident, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Neck Pain, Soft Tissue Injury | No Comments »
March 26th, 2012

The injury claimant was injured when the car she was driving was rear-ended by another vehicle(Fell v. Morton,2012 BCSC 428). Fault for the accident was admitted but causation and quantum remained in dispute likely by the insurer ICBC , given that the car accident occurred in British Columbia. The questions were whether the back and neck pain and migraine headaches were pre-existing problems that were just aggravated shortly by the accident; and whether the claimant suffered loss of earning capacity due to her injuries.
At the time of the car accident injury the claimant was self-employed in the film industry as a first aid service provider which involved being on location during filming to provide first aid and to provide snacks and light meals for actors, directors, and the film crew. Following the accident, she continued to work until taking her maternity leave. Note that when you continue working after a car accident you are not typically entitled to ICBC disability benefits.
In this oral decision the judge in awarding over $100,000 commented,
In summary, the injuries from the accident have affected all areas of [the injury claimant's] Ms. Fell’s life. While she has periods of time when she is unaffected by her injuries, in particular when she avoids exertion, she has curtailed her recreational activities, no longer camping, exercising at the same level, or taking her dogs for on-leash walks with her husband. She has found it difficult to pick up her children and cannot interact with them when she has a migraine. However, as I have earlier noted, I must also take into account her pre‑existing condition and proclivity to develop migraine headaches.(para 39)
The total compensation awarded to this injury claimant was as follows:
| |
Pain and suffering: |
$65,000 |
|
| |
Out of pocket expenses: |
$4,175 |
|
| |
Cost of future care: |
$2,500 |
|
| |
Past wage loss: |
$0 |
|
| |
Loss of earning capacity: |
$50,000 |
|
| |
TOTAL: |
$121,675 |
Check out my other posts about pregnant injury claimants. Posted by car accident injury lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness
Tags: Car Accident Claim, Car accident lawyer, ICBC, ICBC Injury claim, ICBC Lawyers, Legal Causation, Loss of Income, Neck Pain, Pain and Suffering, Personal Injury, Personal Injury lawyer, Prior Condition
Posted in Back Pain, Car Accident Lawyer, How Much Money Will I Get?, ICBC Car Accident, Limb Injury, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Neck Pain, Soft Tissue Injury, Whiplash Claims | No Comments »
March 12th, 2012

This car accident injury case was sent back for a new trial because the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was wrong in reducing the injury claimants award for failure to following medical advice (Wahl v. Sidhu, 2012 BCCA 111). I reviewed the original decision in which the injury claimant was travelling on 72nd Avenue, in Surrey, B.C. and my article focused on the judges reluctance to compensate for personal injury lawyer funded treatment. Clearly the trial decision was wrong and cannot be relied upon.
The BC Court of Appeal rightly pointed out that the judge’s reasons confuse the issues of causation and mitigation. As stated in Yoshikawa, “any question of mitigation, or failure to mitigate, arises only after causation has been established” (para. 12, subparagraph7). Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Accident Insurance Claim, Back Pain, British Columbia Lawyers, ICBC, ICBC Injury claim, Legal Causation, Mitigation, Negligence
Posted in Back Pain, British Columbia Lawyers, Car Accident Lawyer, ICBC Car Accident, ICBC Insurance Claims, ICBC Truck Accident, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury Lawyers BC, Soft Tissue Injury, Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer, Whiplash Claims | 1 Comment »
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 »
Tags: ICBC Injury claim, Legal Causation, Multiple Injuries, Personal Injury, Prior Condition, Psoriasis
Posted in Back Pain, Brain Injury, ICBC Car Accident, Limb Injury, Neck Pain, Soft Tissue Injury, Traumatic Brain Injury | No Comments »
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
Tags: Accident Insurance Claim, At Fault, Back Pain, Car Accident Claim, Chronic Pain, ICBC, ICBC Medical Examination, Medical Examination, Pain and Suffering, Personal Injury, Prior Condition
Posted in Back Pain, How Much Money Will I Get?, ICBC Car Accident, ICBC Insurance Claims, Insurance Claim in British Columbia, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Soft Tissue Injury, Whiplash Claims | No Comments »
December 20th, 2011

The claimant was injured in a car accident in Kamloops, B.C. (Power v. Carswell, 2011 BCSC 1672) which occurred in the intersection of Lansdowne St. and 3rd Avenue, which is controlled by traffic signals. The claimant was driving a Pontiac Sunfire going straight when she struck a Jeep turning left. Both fault for the accident and the quantum of damages were in issue in this personal injury case.
At the time of the accident the claimant was 28 years old and working as an instructor at a hairdressing school and she claimed that as a result of these injuries, she is no longer able to work as a hair stylist or instructor, and must retrain. She also claimed that she has a reduced ability to look after herself and her family.
The primary issue regarding compensation was the extent to which the claimant’s work and activities would have been restricted even if the accident had not occurred. The ICBC lawyer argued that the claimant would have suffered restrictions because of her injuries in a previous car accident, her large weight, and because of the physical strain of working as a hairdresser. The defence also argued that the claim for future lost earning capacity was exaggerated.
The personal injury lawyer for the claimant argued that the proper award would be about $390,000, consisting of $100,000 for pain and suffering, $31,573 for past lost income, $201,651.40 for retraining and lost future earning capacity, $55,292.05 for the cost of future care, and $406.69 for special damages.
ICBC, for the defendant, argued that the proper award would be about a total of $60,000, consisting of $50,000 for pain and suffering, $501 for past lost income, $25,000 for lost future earning capacity, and $5,000 for cost of future care, all reduced by 25% for failure to mitigate.
In awarding $221,000 Judge Gray stated, Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Accident Insurance Claim, At Fault, Back Pain, British Columbia Lawyers, Car accident lawyer, Chronic Pain, ICBC Lawyers, Insurance Claim, Lawyer Vancouver, Loss of Income, Personal Injury Lawyers, Whiplash Claims
Posted in Back Pain, British Columbia Lawyers, Car Accident Lawyer, Hiring a Personal Injury Lawyer, ICBC Car Accident, ICBC Insurance Claims, ICBC Lawyers, ICBC Motorcycle Accident, Injury Attorneys, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury Lawyers BC, Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer, Whiplash Claims | No Comments »
December 14th, 2011

This case is another reminder of why it is important to hire a personal injury lawyer if you have been injured in a car accident( see: Pearlman v. Phelps Leasing Ltd.,2011 BCSC 1696).
The Judge had a difficult time accepting the testimony of the claimant stating, “The plaintiff’s credibility from the onset of the trial before me through to its conclusion dissipated like aspirin in a glass of water until all that remained was a murky, cloud-like substance. ”
The claimant was a 77-year-old retired lawyer who represented himself on a claim for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The other driver admitted liability, but stated that the collision was minor in nature and any symptoms of which the claimant complains existed before the accident in question. The claimant was involved in two other car accidents one before and one after the accident in question therefore the issue was primarily one of causation.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Accident Insurance Claim, British Columbia Lawyers, Car Accident Claim, Car accident lawyer, Find Lawyers, ICBC Lawyers, Lawyer Vancouver, Lawyers in BC, Legal Causation, Personal Injury lawyer, Personal Injury Lawyers, Prior Condition
Posted in Back Pain, British Columbia Lawyers, Car Accident Lawyer, Hiring a Personal Injury Lawyer, How Much Money Will I Get?, ICBC Car Accident, ICBC Lawyers, Injury Attorneys, Legal Advice, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Neck Pain, Personal Injury Lawyers BC, Soft Tissue Injury, Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer, Whiplash Claims | No Comments »
November 24th, 2011

Personal injury lawyers in British Columbia are always being asked to help get the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, ICBC, to pay for medical expenses that are not covered by the Medical Services Plan. In this private medical cost car accident injury claim(Engqvist v. Doyle, 2011 BCSC 1585) Judge Rogers in Kelowna found that the injury claimant’s pain and the interference with her enjoyment of life was sufficient to merit compensating her for her private health care costs.
After being injured in two car accidents the claimant was recommended treatment that was not covered by MSP. The court found that private fee-for-service care offers the the possibility of alleviating the claimant’s symptoms more quickly than the public system.
In the first car accident the injury claimant was in her mini-van when another car pulled out into her path of travel. The right front corner of the claimant’s van collided with the left front corner of the other vehicle. The impact was of moderate force upon impact, the claimant’s head hit her steering wheel.
In the second car crash the claimant’s vehicle was rear ended. The second collision increased her stress level and aggravated her neck and back pain. She experienced a severe headache. The claimant however returned to her pre-second accident condition within a few months’ time.
Commenting on payment of private health care costs the court stated,
[45] The first point to address on this issue is that it does not concern the Canada Health Act. It does not require a philosophical discussion of the pros and cons of a general public health insurance scheme. Neither does the issue raise concerns about “queue jumping” by a well-resourced patient.
[46] Instead, the fundamental issue is whether a particular future treatment modality is reasonably necessary to promote the plaintiff’s mental and physical health: Milina v. Bartsch(1985), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 33 (S.C.). In the case of medial nerve blocks, the evidence at trial was clear that the plaintiff should undergo at least one set of medial nerve block injections. The evidence at trial was also clear that the plaintiff could access medial nerve block injections on a fee-for-service basis at a private health clinic pretty much at her convenience, while publicly funded medial nerve blocks require that the plaintiff go on a four- to six-month waiting list. Similar time frames apply to rhizotomy procedures if such are indicated by the nerve blocks…
[51] Reasonable in this context must be measured by an objective standard. What is reasonable in a given case must take into account not only the wait times involved, but also the degree of the plaintiff’s pain while sitting out those wait times and the effect that that pain will have on the plaintiff’s enjoyment of life. A minor ache in one’s little finger would be unlikely to be sufficient to underwrite expensive privately funded health care while a case of surgically curable paraplegia probably would.
[52] Accepting as I do the plaintiff’s evidence concerning the pain she has and its interference with her everyday life, I find that the plaintiff’s pain and its interference with her enjoyment of life is sufficient to merit acceleration of treatment via funding of private health care.
The judge awarded personal injury compensation as follows:
| Pain and suffering |
$ |
70,000 |
| Past Income Loss |
|
2,150 |
| Reduction of Earning Capacity |
|
5,000 |
| Out of pocket expenses |
|
5,264 |
| Future Care |
|
30,000 |
Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness
Tags: cost of future care, Multiple Injuries, Pain and Suffering, Personal Injury, private health care costs
Posted in Back Pain, ICBC Car Accident, ICBC Insurance Claims, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Neck Pain, Soft Tissue Injury, Whiplash Claims | No Comments »