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). By using failure to mitigate to limit the period in which causation was found to be established, the trial judge improperly merged the two issues. Such confusion of the issues is evident in para. 250, which deals with the appellant’s failure to undergo the needle test. It is also manifest in the tension between the clear findings of failure to mitigate regarding the appellant’s non-attendance at the pain clinic and his failure to undergo a needle test (paras. 247 and 250, respectively), and the judge’s refusal to reduce non-pecuniary damages on the basis of failure to mitigate in paras. 257-258. Having cut off damages at June 2009 for failure to mitigate, the judge refused to further reduce damages on this basis because he considered the delay in recovery to be attributable to the appellant’s “psychological overlay”, which he found was “directly related to the accident”.
Given the the errors with respect to mitigation and causation the interests of justice plainly required a new trial for this car accident injury claim. As a result the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Posted by personal injury lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness
One responsePersonal Injury Award Conflates Legal Causation with Assessment of Damages Says Court Of Appeal
Truck Accident Injury Award Reduced By Judge Despite Lawyer Funded Physiotherapy « Holness Law Group Blog
March 12, 2012 10:29pm
[...] March 12, 2012- This injury case was overturned by the BC Court of appeal and is no longer good law. See my personal injuryÂ article reviewing the Court of Appeal decision. [...]
"Renn A. Holness is a gifted lawyer and author to over 1000 legal blog articles. Married father of two daughters, son of a neurosurgeon and founder of Holness Law Group."
Jacqueline Small is diligent, professional, and compassionate. She went above and beyond when I was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Anytime I had questions she would respond quickly and always seemed to be one step ahead. I called several accident law firms and none were as knowledgeable and sincere as Jacqueline. Highly recommended!
I would totally recommend this law group. Renn handled my case with the utmost professionalism kept me informed throughout and explained in easy to understand layman's terms. I am very happy with how things worked out. I would highly recommend if you ever need a lawyer to contact him. Great job and a big thank you to all.
Over a period of 4 years Jacqueline Small guided me throughout the entirety of my personal injury claim after a motor vehicle accident left me with chronic pain. My experience was pleasant, professional, thorough, and communication was always open. I was treated with care like a person and not just a case. Jacqueline was with me every step of the way until we reached a settlement with the insurance company. 10/10 I would recommend to any friends or family.