Facebook Photos In Personal Injury Lawsuit Ordered Produced Despite Privacy Concerns

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 »

Fast Track Personal Injury Claimant Awarded over $100,000

April 18th, 2012

In this Fast Track car accident injury case (Bissonnette v. Horn, 2012 BCSC 518) the injury claimant was a passenger in a vehicle driving southbound on 203rd Street, near Michaud Crescent, in Langley, B.C.  Another vehicle, also traveling southbound on 203rd Street, cut off the claimant  vehicle causing it to lose control, which then came in contact with a utility pole.

The main issues at trial were the extent of the claimant’s pain, what injuries were caused by the accident, and the proper measure of her compensation. ICBC argued that the complaints of left hip pain did not arise until years after the car accident and were not caused by the accident.  ICBC relied on the evidence of  Dr. Grypma.

The court accepted the injury claim despite the defence awarding $109,500 in damages consisting of the following:

a)    Pain and suffering  of $40,000;

b)    $37,500 for past lost income;

c)    $30,000 for lost future earning capacity;

d)    $500 for out of pocket expenses, and

e)    $1,500 for the cost of future care.

Posted by Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness

Vancouver Car Accident injury Award Despite Intervening Snow Shovelling Injury

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

Car Accident Injury Claimant on Maternity Leave at Trial Awarded over $120,000.00

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

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 »

Retired Lawyer Represents Himself in Personal Injury Case and Receives Low Award

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 »

Injury Claimant Awarded Legal Fee Contribution as Judge Acknowledges Court Backlog

December 1st, 2011

 

This personal injury summary trial,(Parmar v. Lahay, 2011 BCSC 1628) pursuant to Rule 9‑7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred one year before the hearing.  There was no claim for loss of wages or any future loss of capacity and the only question was how much compensation should be awarded for pain and suffering.

 In evidence were two opinions from the family doctor of the claimant.  What was recommended was physiotherapy treatment.  Six of those sessions were undertaken.  The Judge awarded $12,500.00 for pain and suffering  taking into account that the claimant continued to suffer neck and shoulder pain 13 months after the accident.  The cases quoted by the claimant were between $10,000 and $15,000.

Despite the fact this claim was within the Small Claims Court Jurisdiction the Judge still awarded a contribution toward the claimant’s legal fee.  The Court took judicial notice that the case reached the Court for decision much more quickly than if it had been commenced in Small Claims Court.  The Court also took judicial notice of the absence of a considerable number of judges at the Provincial Court level (Small Claims Court) and the backlog in hearing matters that the failure to appoint more judges had produced. The Judge stated the law in this way, Read the rest of this entry »

Car Accident Injury Claimant Compensated by BC Court for Private Health Care Costs

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

Personal Injury Claimant Awarded over $250,000.00 for Car Accident Injury

November 6th, 2011

 

The claimant was injured in a car crash in Roberts Creek on the Sunshine Coast near Gibsons, British Columbia (Milliken v. Rowe, 2011 BCSC 1458). While the injury claimant  was turning left at an intersection the other driver attempted to pass on the left  striking  the driver’s side of the claimant’s car.

The personal injury claimant  was 37 when she was injured. She suffered from injuries to her right hip and back that caused significant discomfort and effects of those injuries were mostly resolved within about two years.  However the claimant suffered from right shoulder pain that did not resolve for over four years. The medical treatment  for the the pain and suffering concerning her right shoulder would be  invasive surgery. Whether successful or not, the proposed complex surgery will require an extensive period of recuperation of from 3 to 6 months.

In awarding $85,000.00 for pain and suffering the judge set out a list of items to consider when awarding compensation under this heading: Read the rest of this entry »