Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/tag/brain-injury
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:59:58+00:00

Document:
Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing damages for severe injuries following a motor vehicle collision.
In last week’s case (Harrington v. Sangha) the Plaintiff was struck by a tractor trailer in 2007. Another motorist who initially lost control causing the tractor-trailer to collide with the Plaintiff was found fully liable for the incident. The Plaintiff suffered a frontal lobe brain injury in addition to a brachial plexus injury.
 There is no doubt that the plaintiff has been severely and dramatically affected by the injuries sustained in the January 18, 2007, motor vehicle accident. There is no doubt with respect to the extent of her physical injuries. There is convincing evidence that she has suffered a traumatic brain injury. That injury has affected her cognition and may have reduced her global intelligence. There is ample evidence from her family and friends that her behaviour has been significantly affected. She is irritable and disinhibited. Her memory and concentration are poor. These changes are typical of those experienced by people who have suffered frontal lobe injuries of the sort sustained by Ms. Harrington. She is affected by chronic pain and headaches. She requires significant medication to deal with her pain and that has further impacted her emotional state and her intellectual functioning. By all accounts she is now unemployable.
 Fortunately, she is still largely independent and capable. As the defendants point out, she appears, to the casual observer and even to trained professionals on first encounter, to be someone who is functioning well and behaving appropriately. She is still capable of enjoying many of the amenities of life and may do so to a greater extent if she benefits from certain of the chronic pain management programs recommended to her.
 It is true, as the plaintiff submits, that there is no “range” of devastating injuries. All devastating injuries should attract an award of general damages at the upper limit permissible. I am of the view, however, that while Ms. Harrington will be seriously affected for the balance of her life by the significant injury she sustained, her injury cannot properly be described as devastating. Unlike the plaintiff in Morrison v. Cormier Vegetation Control, she is not limited to minimal participation in the activities of daily living. She is unlikely to be shunned and the range of relationships open to her should not be forever limited. She appears, still, to have reasonable insight into her situation and condition and has in fact formed relationships since her accident. By suggesting an award that is marginally less than the upper limit, the plaintiff’s counsel implicitly acknowledges that this is not a case where the rough upper limit of general damages is an appropriate award.
 On the other hand, the defendants, by referring only to the examining experts’ first impressions of Ms. Harrington and her appearance in the witness box at trial, underestimate the dramatic effect of the injury upon her. There is no reference in the defendant’s submissions to the common findings of the neuropsychologists with respect to the nature and extent of the consequences of the head injury. Nor is there any reference to the testimony of the many family and friends who testified with respect to the dramatic change in the plaintiff’s behaviour. Taking into account both the very significant limitations in her physical activities associated with her brachial plexus injury and the functional impact of her head injury, I am of the view that general damages in this case should be assessed at $210,000.
I recently posted on the potential for mistrials when counsel give their personal opinion in an opening statement to a jury. Today reasons for judgement were released by the BC Court of Appeal further discussing, amongst other topics, proper opening remarks by counsel in a Car Crash case.
In today’s case (Moskaleva v. Laurie) the Plaintiff suffered serious injuries including a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) in a 2002 motor vehicle collision. The Plaintiff was crossing with the light in a marked cross-walk in Maple Ridge at the time.
3. the trial judge’s interventions and questions during the testimony of three expert witnesses called by the defence impugned the credibility of those witnesses.
4. the appellant alleges that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury by failing to explain properly the law relevant to past and future economic loss and by inaccurately stating the appellant’s position on that issue. The relief the appellant seeks on the first four grounds of appeal is an order for a new trial.
5. that the awards for non-pecuniary damages, past wage loss, and future economic loss are inordinately high, not supported by the evidence, and inconsistent with the jury’s award for cost of future care.
 Under the first ground of appeal, the appellant argues that the opening submissions of respondent’s counsel were improper and prejudicial and resulted in an unfair trial. To support her submissions that the opening statement failed to conform to the proper function or purpose of an opening, the appellant refers to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1953), vol. 3, at 69, and to what was said by Finch C.J.B.C. in Brophy v. Hutchinson, 2003 BCCA 21 at paras. 24-25, 9 B.C.L.R. (4th) 46. As to the effect of an improper opening statement, the appellant refers to Brophy at para. 48.
 The appellant complains that the opening statement contained no explanation as to its purpose and, rather than outlining the facts the respondent expected to prove, gave a description of the accident, the mechanism of a brain injury, and the respondent’s training and employment background, all as if they were established fact, thereby giving the impression that all that was important for the jury to consider was the evidence of the respondent’s symptoms in the aftermath of the collision. The appellant further submits that in the opening, the respondent’s symptoms and the consequences of the accident were couched in pathos through an emotional appeal to the challenges faced by the respondent as an immigrant to Canada from Russia. The appellant argues that while the complete effect of the opening remarks of respondent’s counsel cannot be known to a certainty, the character of those remarks was clearly prejudicial. The appellant contends that the fullness of their effect was to cement for the jury as fact the assertion that the respondent had suffered a brain injury, was incapable of performing work, and had suffered a significant economic loss.
 The appellant also complains that a phrase used by the respondent’s lawyer at the conclusion of his opening improperly suggested that the accident, instead of being the result of negligence, was volitional. In that regard, the appellant refers to the statement in the opening that the appellant “chose to launch her car forward from that stop sign and not pay attention to who was in the cross-walk”. In the appellant’s submission, the effect was to present the appellant’s case in the context of the respondent as victim and the appellant as culprit. The appellant argues that the effect was to demonize the appellant at the inception of the trial, thus implicitly characterizing her as a person who intentionally disregarded the interests of others, rather than being merely negligent.
 Another complaint the appellant makes is that it was improper for respondent’s counsel to use evidence in the form of photographs in the opening.
 In my view, none of the arguments put forward under the first ground of appeal can succeed.
 The appellant’s characterization of what was said in the respondent’s opening is overstated and, in some instances, inaccurate. Prior to counsel for the respondent beginning his opening statement, appellant’s counsel informed the trial judge that he did not dispute that the appellant was negligent but said he was not in a position to admit liability. As a result of the position taken, liability was obviously in issue. In the circumstances, for respondent’s counsel to refer to the respondent’s recollection of the accident in his opening statement is unremarkable. At trial, appellant’s counsel did not object to the description given by respondent’s counsel as to how the accident had occurred and did not complain that respondent’s counsel had “demonized” the appellant.
Now, you’ve heard that Ms. Laurie ran her vehicle into the plaintiff. There’s no doubt. There’s no doubt that Ms. Moskaleva was in the intersection. There’s no doubt that Ms. Moskaleva had the right-of-way. There is nothing that I could say to suggest that Ms. Moskaleva did anything wrong, or that my client demonstrated all the care that she should have. She didn’t. She didn’t. As a result you may find that my client was negligent. I don’t have anything to say on that. Nothing I can say. I think it’s fairly obvious.
 In view of the foregoing, there is no substance to the submission that the remarks in the respondent’s opening about the appellant’s manner of driving at the time of the accident resulted in the kind of prejudice that would require a new trial.
 In his opening, respondent’s counsel showed the jury some photographs of the respondent and her husband. Appellant’s counsel had been informed in advance by respondent’s counsel that he intended to use the photographs in his opening and appellant’s counsel told the trial judge he did not have “a problem” with the photographs. After the opening had been given, appellant’s counsel repeated that he did not object to the use of the photographs.
I will turn next to the opening remarks of counsel. One of the Mr. Faheys will begin the trial once I have concluded my remarks. He will take the opportunity to explain to you what he expects the evidence will disclose and give you an overview of his case. Counsel for the defendant will do so at a later time after the plaintiff’s evidence has been called. These opening remarks are made so that you will have a better understanding of the nature of the evidence that the parties intend to call; however, the opening remarks are not evidence and you cannot rely on what the lawyer says in his opening to prove the facts that you have to prove to decide the case. You must only accept that the case is proven based on evidence that is called at court.
 Counsel for the respondent referred throughout his opening to the types of evidence he intended to adduce and what that evidence would show. He specifically told the jury there would be controversy in the evidence concerning brain injury, concussion, and post-concussion syndrome and asked the jury to pay close attention to the evidence that would be led. There were some phrases or statements in the respondent’s opening that might have been more carefully couched, but considered in the context in which they were uttered, they were not such as to exclude consideration of the case for the appellant.
 After the respondent’s counsel had concluded his opening statement, appellant’s counsel asked the trial judge to remind the jury that the opening was not evidence. The trial judge decided his earlier instruction was sufficient, and in his charge, the judge reminded the jury that they were to rely on their own recollection of the evidence, not anything said by counsel.
In my opinion, having made a reasoned decision not to seek a mistrial, I do not consider it is open now to counsel for the appellant to advance an argument that the discovery and use by the judge of the evidence resulted in an unfair trial proceeding. A rational choice was made at trial by experienced and competent counsel and it would not be appropriate to now allow this point to be the foundation of a contrary position in this Court.
 Further support for the view expressed by Hall J.A. may be found in Rendall v. Ewert (1989), 60 D.L.R. (4th) 513, 38 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 at 10 (C.A.), and in Morton v. McCracken (1995), 7 B.C.L.R. (3d) 220 at para. 13, 57 B.C.A.C. 47.
 I would not accede to the first ground.
$220,000 Non-Pecuniary Damage Assessment for "Psychotic Disorder"
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, awarding a Plaintiff damages for serious injuries and losses as a result of a 2001 Car Accident in Mission, BC.
What was interesting about this case (Polovnikoff v. Banks) was the very unique injuries the Plaintiff suffered as a result of this collision. Madam Justice Bruce found that the Plaintiff sustained a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and a Psychotic Disorder as a result of this crash. While accident related brain injury cases are not all that uncommon it is quite rare to see a claim with an alleged accident related psychotic disorder to proceed to trial.
Madam Justice Bruce awarded $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) for the Plaintiff’s brain injury and related cognitive deficits. In doing so she noted that the Plaintiff suffered from a ‘persistent cognitive impairment with predominant problems with his attention, concentration, ability to hold information, and being in the present with memory difficulties, short term and longer term memory problems‘.
 Superimposed upon the plaintiff’s cognitive impairment is a completely disabling psychotic disorder. The plaintiff’s mental state has significantly interfered with his ability to function normally in every aspect of his life. His psychotic features adversely affect his ability to think and reason, impair his judgment, cause him to neglect personal hygiene, enhance the adverse impact of his cognitive impairments, including his ability to concentrate and short and long term memory, and make him apathetic about his life and others around him. The plaintiff is plagued by sleeplessness, anxiety, irritability, aggressive or violent feelings, lack of insight, verbal and physical inhibition, and recklessness. Mr. Stanus concluded that the plaintiff was completely unemployable in a competitive market due to his psychotic disorder.
 Clearly the plaintiff has undergone a catastrophic loss of enjoyment of life. While there is some doubt about how successful Festival Foods was as a going concern, it is apparent from both the plaintiff’s testimony and the collateral witnesses called by the plaintiff that he really enjoyed running the company and that he had significant skills and talents that have been lost entirely as a result of this disabling mental illness. The plaintiff requires constant supervision and is unable to carry out the simplest tasks. He no longer pays any attention to his physical care and hygiene and has lost interest in all of his pre-accident physical and recreational activities. Based on these factors I award the plaintiff $220,000 for non-pecuniary damages arising out of the psychotic disorder.
 This award must be reduced by 2% to reflect the small but measurable risk that the plaintiff’s alcohol consumption may have led to the psychotic disorder regardless of the July 2001 accident. This award must be reduced a further 45% to reflect the adverse impact of alcohol consumption on the progression of his psychotic disorder and the involvement of alcohol addiction in the symptoms that are currently a part of the plaintiff’s clinical presentation.
 Turning to the other accidents and subsequent events, it is apparent from the medical reports of Dr. Hunt and the clinical notes of Dr. Yokoyama that the December 2000 accident was the beginning of the plaintiff’s emotional distress albeit his major psychiatric symptoms appeared after the 2001 accident. Both Dr. Gopinath and Dr. Hunt attribute the plaintiff’s “superimposed psychological and psychiatric disturbances” to the injuries he suffered in both the December 2000 and the July 2001 accidents. Only Dr. Smith ruled out any causal relationship between any of the other accidents and the plaintiff’s current psychiatric illness: December 31, 2008 report at p. 19. This accident also appears to be the most seriously disabling for the plaintiff next to the July 2001 accident. Thus I would allocate to this accident 10% responsibility for the damages awarded to the plaintiff for the mental illness he suffers from.
 The accident witnessed by the plaintiff in January 2002 caused him to have a panic attack and increased his anxiety level for a brief period. The clinical notes of Dr. Yokoyama indicate the anxiety was improving after only a few days. In addition, this is clearly a non-tortious cause that does not reduce the defendants’ liability. The accident that occurred on October 21, 2002 was also fairly minor and nothing in Dr. Yokoyama’s clinical records indicates the plaintiff suffered any lasting emotional trauma as a result of this event. Accordingly, I attribute no responsibility for loss to the defendant in that case.
 The plaintiff was involved in an accident on September 24, 2003. He was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his father when this accident occurred. The van driven by Mr. Polovnikoff became hooked to the rear of a truck and this caused the van to be swung in a circular motion causing damage to the front bumper and two broken windows. When Dr. Hunt saw the plaintiff on November 27, 2003, he was confused, irrational, and having abnormal mental thoughts. The plaintiff disclosed that he was too frightened to drive or be a passenger in a vehicle because of the possibility of another accident. Dr. Hunt was so concerned about the plaintiff’s mental stability that he considered having him committed to hospital for acute psychiatric care.
 While the plaintiff appeared much more disturbed than in previous assessments, Dr. Hunt had already seen psychiatric problems developing in June 2003 before this accident had occurred. In addition, there is no follow up visit with Dr. Yokoyama, which was unusual for plaintiff, to indicate that this state of high anxiety continued for an extended period. Indeed, the next visit to Dr. Yokoyama was on February 24, 2004 after another accident had occurred. Thus, although it is apparent this accident caused some deterioration in the plaintiff’s condition, I am unable to find that it was either substantial or long term in its effect. The accident on February 18, 2004, which Dr. Yokoyama concluded had aggravated the plaintiff’s agitation level, was also short lived in effect. During the next visit to Dr. Yokoyama on March 17, 2004 there is no reference to any aggravation of his ongoing concussion symptoms. Thus I reduce the award for both these events by a nominal 2%.
 The accident on May 30, 2004 in the parking lot of the Astoria hotel seemed significant to Ms. Lustado. She considered this to be a turning point in their relationship because of the noticeable deterioration in the plaintiff’s emotional demeanour. Dr. Yokoyama’s clinical notes on June 2, 2004 indicate that the plaintiff developed anxiety and tension after this accident in addition to an aggravation of his soft tissue injuries. On August 30, 2004 there is also a reference in Dr. Yokoyama’s clinical records to “regression – post concussion syndrome” which I interpret as some deterioration in the plaintiff’s mental state. Accordingly, I reduce the award by 5% to reflect the damage caused by this defendant’s negligence.
 The accidents that occurred on November 18, 2004, March 22, 2005, and November 29, 2006 do not appear to have aggravated to any measurable degree the psychotic disorder suffered by the plaintiff. By November 2004 his symptoms were well developed and the visits with Dr. Yokoyama after these accidents indicate the major concern in each case was an aggravation of the soft tissue injuries.
 Finally, the plaintiff was involved in an assault in or about July 2006 which I find exacerbated his emotional problems and led to deterioration in his mental health. Dr. Gopinath reported that following this assault the plaintiff was clearly more paranoid in general and in regard to the police in particular. Dr. Gopinath believed the plaintiff had been “badly shaken up” by this experience and developed symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. He was having sleep difficulties, waking up with nightmares, and panic attacks. Dr. Gopinath’s December 16, 2008 report also features this assault as significant in the plaintiff’s clinical presentation and he acknowledged in his testimony that the plaintiff’s psychotic symptoms worsened after this event. It was also partly due to this assault that Mr. Polovnikoff moved his son and Ms. Lustado to Keremeos. They wanted to get away from the police and the other stressors in the plaintiff’s life.
 While this event is significant, it must be acknowledged that the plaintiff’s psychotic symptoms were well entrenched at this time and his inability to function normally in all aspects of his life had already been a reality for some time. Dr. Gopinath had observed severe psychotic symptoms as early as October 2005 when the plaintiff first came to him for treatment. Accordingly, I find the award should be reduced by a further 5% as a result of this tortious intervening event.
 In summary, the non-pecuniary award arising from the psychiatric illness suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of $220,000 must be reduced by a total of 69%. The reduced award is therefore $68,200. The total award for non-pecuniary damages is $118,200 ($50,000 plus $68,200).
In highly anticipated reasons for judgement released today, following a 4 week trial in late 2007, Mr. Justice Maczko awarded a severely injured Plaintiff over $1,000,000 in compensation as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
The issues to be decided at trial were liability (who was at fault) and quantum (the value of the injuries) as a result of a significant accident which occurred in West Vancouver, BC in 2004.
The Plaintiff, who was 26 years old at the time, was standing in a roadway in West Vancouver when he was struck by a Hummer SUV driven by the Defendant. The Plaintiff sustained serious injuries including a traumatic brain injury, scalp wound, bilateral wrist and jaw fractures, the loss of several teeth, and soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The traumatic brain injury was the most significant of these in terms of the Plaintiff’s employability and need for future medical care.
In the end the court found the Defendant entirely at fault an awarded over $1,000,000 in damages to the Plaintiff.
 The Hummer travelled too quickly for the existing conditions. Mr. Samieian was negligent in moving his vehicle too quickly and travelling around the cube van when his view of his path was obscured. It is more likely that the accident arose from driver error than from a complete failure of all controls on the Hummer. It is unlikely that steering, braking and acceleration all malfunctioned at once, and without leaving anything detectable on inspection after the accident.
 As a result, the defendants are entirely responsible for the accident and for the losses it caused Mr. Dikey.
As is often the case in ICBC claims involving brain injuries, the court heard from numerous expert physicians including neurologists, a neuropsychologist, and a Physiatrist (physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist).
 In summary, Mr. Dikey suffered many injuries as a result of the accident. The most significant injury in terms of functioning was the traumatic brain injury. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the injury was moderate when it occurred, but this is of little assistance in determining the long-term impact of the injury.
 Mr. Dikey’s continuing cognitive problems include significant limitations with memory, planning, organizing, attention, concentration, awareness, judgement, decision-making, language, reasoning, abstract thinking, mental flexibility, and calculations. He forgets to eat and take his medications regularly, and forgets appointments. He also suffers depression, isolation and limited social support and interactions. He has minimal initiation and motivation.
 Mr. Dikey suffered serious head and jaw injuries. Dr. Goldstein recommends investigating jaw reconstruction, likely requiring refracturing the jaw on both sides, and tooth replacement. Mr. Dikey and his family were undecided for several years about whether to pursue that treatment, owing to the risk of damage to a facial nerve. The evidence suggests that the risk is small and any damage that might occur would probably be temporary.
 Mr. Dikey suffered two broken wrists. His left wrist healed appropriately, but the right wrist did not. He does not have pain-free full range of motion of his right wrist owing to the way the fracture healed. The suggested surgery will give him a very good chance of increased range of motion without pain.
 Mr. Dikey suffered injury to his right knee. The recommended surgery for his right knee would have a good likelihood of relieving his right knee pain.
 Mr. Dikey has continuing pain from his soft tissue injury to his neck and back. His cuts and bruises have healed, but he has a visible scar on his forehead and in his scalp. His primary complaint is of headaches, which can be so bad at times that they lead to vomiting. They are his most frequent and significant cause of pain.
 Mr. Dikey’s life has changed profoundly as a consequence of the accident. He is unlikely to work, and has lost the self-esteem, enjoyment and income that is available from work. While he retains the ability to walk and talk and engage in the activities of daily living, his cognitive problems are such that he will require some assistance for the rest of his life. His most significant loss is the loss of cognitive abilities. He also suffers severe headaches. He has chronic pain in the neck. His pain and the lost function of his right wrist are likely to improve following surgery. He will likely have on-going problems with his neck and back.
If you have questions about an ICBC claim or a brain injury claim that you would like to discuss with an ICBC claims lawyer feel free to contact Erik Magraken for a free consultation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.