Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/category/icbc-head-injury-cases
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:27:44+00:00

Document:
In a stark example of the profound consequences that can come from a modest confrontation, damages of $553,000 were ordered to be paid after an intoxicated groom to be pushed a man that was teasing him.
In today’s case (Robinson v. Bud’s Bar Inc) the Defendant, a groom to be who was “exotically dressed and wearing a ball and chain” following a bachelor party, was approached by the Plaintiff and teased about his upcoming marriage. Both parties were intoxicated. The Defendant responded by pushing the plaintiff who fell down, struck his head on the ground, and suffered a permanent brain injury.
 I find on the evidence that both men were intoxicated. I find that the plaintiff came up to the defendant Leelund Turner and teased him and persisted to do so despite being told to leave and being asked by his friend or friends to get going. I do not conclude that the defendant Leelund Turner held the plaintiff before pushing him as counsel suggested. I find the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to extricate himself from the situation. The plaintiff could easily have walked away but the plaintiff persisted to tease Leelund Turner. The push was sudden and careless but it followed the Leelund Turner’s plea to Mr. Robinson to leave him alone.
 I find that in these particular circumstances the defendant Leelund Turner has satisfied me that the plaintiff was both contributorily negligent and provoked the negligent push. In these particular circumstances the concepts overlap to a degree. While I recognize that alcohol consumption is not itself negligence, here I find that the plaintiff was intoxicated to the extent that he persisted to be rude to the defendant Leelund Turner in close quarters despite being told to back away by Leelund Turner and being told by his friend that he should leave. I find that for Mr. Robinson to persist as he did to tease the defendant Leelund Turner at close quarters, he was partly at fault for the injury.
 I think that the conduct of the plaintiff also amounted to provocation. While the plaintiff’s counsel says that the conduct does not meet the definition of provocation, I think in the circumstances of this case that it can easily be inferred from the evidence that the persistence of the plaintiff at close quarters that was rude and aggressive caused the defendant Leelund Turner to momentarily lose his power of self control and push the plaintiff abruptly, forcibly and carelessly away, resulting in the fall.
 While I do not find that the defendant Leelund Turner has proven that had Mr. Robinson not been intoxicated, the drastic results of the fall would have been avoided, I think that Mr. Robinson must bear some responsibility because of his fault in approaching the defendant Leelund Turner and persistently teasing him at close quarters.
 Accordingly although I find the defendant Leelund Turner liable, I find that both contributory negligence and provocation have been proven by the defendant Leelund Turner and that the damages incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s negligence must be reduced by 30%.
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Court of Appeal succinctly highlighting some of the limits of the forseeability defence to personal injury lawsuits.
In today’s case (Hussack v. Chilliwack School District No. 33) the Plaintiff sustained a concussion when struck in the head with a field hockey stick as he approached another player. He was a student in grade 7 at the time and the game was being supervised by a PE teacher. Madam Justice Boyd of the BC Supreme Court held that the School District was responsible for this event because the teacher permitted the Plaintiff to play before he “learned any of the basic skills or even how to play the game” and that doing so breached the standard of care that the school should have exercised.
The Plaintiff developed serious psychological issues following his concussion. At trial the Plaintiff was awarded just over $1.3 million for his injuries and loss.
 It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the precise injury or the full extent of the injury was reasonably foreseeable. What he must show is that the type or kind of injury was reasonably foreseeable: Hughes v. Lord Advocate,  UKHL 1; Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council,  UKHL 31; Ontario (Minister of Highways) v. Côté,  1 S.C.R. 595….
 The principle of reasonable foreseeability in relation to psychiatric injury is subject to a qualification: where the psychiatric injury is consequential to the physical injury for which the defendant is responsible, the defendant is also responsible for the psychiatric injury even if this injury was unforeseeable. See White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police,  2 A.C. 455 at 470, Varga v. John Labbatt,  O.R. 1007, 6 D.L.R. (2d) 336 (H.C.); Yoshikawa v. Yu (1996) 21 B.C.L.R. (3d) 318, 73 B.C.A.C. (C.A.); Edwards v. Marsden, 2004 BCSC 590; Samuel v. Levi, 2008 BCSC 1447.
When presenting a claim at trial dealing with future loss it is vital to have appropriate expert evidence to justify sought damages. Failure to do so can result in a dismissal of the sought damages even if they are unopposed. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry highlighting the importance of medico-legal evidence in personal injury trials.
In this week’s case (Moore v. Briggs) the Plaintiff suffered a fractured skull (fractured left temporal bone) and a brain injury in a 2003 assault.
The Plaintiff sued those he claimed were responsible for the assault. One of the Defendant’s did not respond to the lawsuit and the Plaintiff obtained default judgement against him. The Plaintiff asked the Court to award substantial damages including an award for diminished earning capacity. Despite the Plaintiff’s assessment of damages being unopposed the Plaintiff was only awarded a fraction of his claimed damages and he received nothing for future loss.
 As a result of the assault, the plaintiff continues to have some problem with memory. This has improved over time such that it does not interfere with work or enjoyment of life, but still lingers. He also has difficulty with attention span and focus. He continues to have almost daily headaches. These often interrupt his sleep. He noticed that eye near the indentation in his temple was “lazy”, a couple of times a week at first and now hardly noticeable.
 The plaintiff also claims loss of future earning capacity because of inability to obtain employment on the log booms. He calculated this amount based upon expectations of work life to age 65 at the remuneration rate that he said he would have received as a greenhand. This is contrary to the capital asset approach which has been adopted in this Court (Parypa v. Wickware, 1999 BCCA 88 at para. 63). However, the evidence on this aspect of the claim is scant and unsupported by any medical or actuarial evidence. Further, the plaintiff had successfully advanced in his work at present and said that this is his employment of choice. Further, there was no evidence that his employment aggravated his symptoms. The plaintiff must establish that there is a real and substantial possibility that his earning capacity has been impaired to some degree as a result of the injuries sustained in the assault (Romanchych v. Vallianatos, 2010 BCCA 20 at para. 10). In my view, there is little likelihood of any substantial possibility of an actual income loss in the circumstances here. There is nothing to suggest that the plaintiff will be unable to perform the tasks required in his work of choice. Nothing is awarded under this head of damage.
Many of you may be aware of ICBC’s current “demystifying” campaign. There are many misunderstood topics related to injury lawsuits and one of the most prominent is that of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, demystifying some of the arguments that are commonly raised in opposition to these claims.
In today’s case (Madill v. Sithivong) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 BC motor vehicle collision. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck on the passenger side by the Defendant’s vehicle. The issue of fault was admitted by the Defendant with the trial largely focussing on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.
The collision was not significant, from a vehicle damage perspective, causing little over $1,700 in damage to the Plaintiff vehicle. Despite this the Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury in the crash. ICBC argued that the injuries were not serious in part because the vehicle damage was modest, the Plaintiff had a ‘normal‘ Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15/15 noted on the ambulance crew report and that the hospital records relating to the treatment of the Plaintiff noted that he suffered from “No LOC (loss of consciousness)” and “zero amnesia“.
 Dr. Hunt said he tries to concentrate on the individual. He finds it helpful to see the notes of the family doctor, which deal with initial complaints, as do the notes of the ER doctor and responders. But he notes that those doctors are very busy, and things get overlooked. The same is true with an ambulance crew. Dr. Hunt stated there may be no loss of consciousness, but there may be a loss of awareness. An ambulance crew may give a 15 score for the Glasgow scale, indicating normal, but that could be misleading. He also noted that someone may be described as being in good health pre-accident, but that would not mean he would not have issues.
 Dr. Hunt disagreed that the best evidence of whether the plaintiff was an amnesiac, were notes at the hospital of “no LOC” and “zero amnesia”. It was the evidence of Dr. Hunt that no matter how many times you see those terms, that a patient is alert and wide awake, that sometimes in looking at crew reports, the necessary information is not there. A person does not need to strike his head for a concussion to have occurred. It need only have been a shaking.
 It is important to explain what a mild traumatic brain injury is, he stressed; Dr. Hunt referred to the many concussions in sports. He said it is important to look at what happened following the accident, what symptoms have occurred and are continuing to occur. Patients often deny a loss of consciousness or a loss of awareness, and it may be so fleeting that they may well be unaware. But if the head has been shaken or jarred enough, this will equal a concussion, which is the same as a mild traumatic brain injury. There may be no indication of bruises on the head, but it still could be a concussion. Dr. Hunt noted that something prevented the plaintiff from exiting the vehicle, so the Jaws of Life was used.
 Dr. Hunt noted that Dr. Tessler agreed that the plaintiff had a cerebral concussion in his initial report, but it was the opinion of Dr. Hunt that Dr. Tessler was not up to date on mild traumatic brain injuries.
 I found Dr. Hunt to be an excellent witness. He was cautious, detailed, thoughtful, low key, thorough and utterly professional. In cross-examination, he gave a minor clinic on mild traumatic brain injuries. He was subjected to a rigorous, lengthy and skilful cross-examination, which only served to expand upon and magnify his report and opinions.
 He commented on the history of Mr. Madill prior to the accident, pointing to a number of things that may have caused excessive jarring or shaking of the head, even if there had been no symptoms of concussion. He believes that the first responders’ observations are not always accurate as to what actually happened. He said he himself may not have identified problems of concussion at the scene of the accident. Ninety percent of people with concussions have headaches. They have difficulty describing the headaches, and they are not the same as migraine or tension headaches.
 I found the report and the evidence of Dr. Hunt persuasive. He came across as an advocate of a better understanding of concussions or mild traumatic brain injuries, not as an advocate on behalf of the plaintiff.
 Much of the videotaping occurred while both the plaintiff and the private investigator were moving on streets and highways, driving at the speed of other traffic. The investigators testified they drove with one hand on the wheel and the other hand operating the video camera, up at the side of their head, to allow them to view through the camera what they were taping. That continues to be their practice today, according to at least one of the investigators, which was interesting, considering from whom they receive their instructions, a corporation dedicated to road safety.
Lastly, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of diminished earning capacity. In short the Plaintiff was self employed with his spouse. Despite his injuries he was able to continue working but his spouse took on greater responsibility following the collision. The Court recognized that the Plaintiff suffered from a diminisehd earning capacity and awarded $650,000 for this loss. Paragraphgs 193-210 of the judgement contain the Court’s discussion of this topic.
30] Ms. Guilbault describes the complaints which she attributes to the August 29, 2004 accident as including her right hip, neck and shoulder pain and her headaches as having slowed her down and preventing her from doing things that she has wanted to do. Her horse breaking and wakeboarding activities have largely ended because both activities cause her neck problems. Ms. Guilbault also testified that although her participation in many other outdoor pursuits has been diminished as a result of the injuries she has been able over time to return to those activities, just not as actively as before. She continues to suffer some neck pain and headaches, but not to the same extent as previously and she appears to have developed mechanisms to cope with and diminish her neck pain and headaches.
 I am satisfied that as a result of the August 29, 2004 accident Ms. Guilbault suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulder and right hip. I accept that her right hip complaint was an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition which followed her being kicked by a horse approximately 10 years before. I also find that as a result of the accident, Ms. Guilbault suffered from particularly distressing headaches. However, I also conclude that over time the complaints emanating from the accident have been largely resolved, although she continues to suffer the occasional headache and some neck pain.
 Ms. Guilbault has taken her pleasure in life from the outdoors and has enjoyed a physically active life, whether in her recreational or her employment pursuits. I consider it likely that those interests developed in part because of her dyslexia and attention deficit disorder which made scholastic endeavours difficult to pursue, but that had no or little impact on her ability to perform and thrive on physically demanding work around her family’s farm and her recreational pursuits. Her complaints following the August 2004 accident have impacted, I conclude, on her physical capabilities over the past four and a half years and will continue to impact on those capabilities to some degree into the future. To Ms. Guilbault, who so relies on her physical capacities for her enjoyment of life, such injuries have a more significant impact than on those whose lifestyle is more sedentary. The greater impact of the injuries to Ms. Guilbault and her lifestyle must be reflected in the measure of the non-pecuniary damages to which she is entitled.
In another ICBC Injury Claim Judgement released today (Haag v. Serry) Just over $120,000 in total damages were awarded to a Plaintiff injured in a 2005 collision which occurred in Surrey, BC.
(a) The accident on October 9, 2005 caused Mr. Haag to suffer soft tissue injuries and activated facet joint arthritis which has resulted in Mr. Haag suffering chronic lower back pain.
(b) I award Mr. Haag non-pecuniary damages in the sum of $63,000, which takes into account a reduction to reflect my conclusion that Mr. Haag comes within the “crumbling skull” rule.
(c) Mr. Haag’s claim for past income loss is dismissed.
(d) I award Mr. Haag $60,000 for loss of earning capacity.
(e) Mr. Haag is entitled to recover special damages in relation to the cost of physiotherapy treatments (including mileage) and for mileage in relation to his visits to Dr. Rebeyka up to the end of 2007 only. I will leave counsel to calculate the dollar amount. The claims for the cost of physiotherapy treatments (including mileage) and mileage in relation to Mr. Haag’s visits to Dr. Rebeyka in 2008 are dismissed.
(f) With respect of the balance of special damages claimed, Mr. Haag is entitled to recover these amounts.
The third ICBC Injury Claim judgement released by the BC Supreme Court today (Majewska v. Partyka) involved a 2007 collision which occurred in Coquitlam, BC. The Plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck, lower back and a concussion. Her syptmoms improved by about 80% by the time of trial. The court was unable to conclude whether the symptoms would fully recover or not.
Reasons for judgement were released today (Tchao v. Bourdon) in an ICBC Injury Tort Claim awarding $276,504.46 in total damages as a result of injuries suffered in a 2004 collision in the Lower Mainland.
 I am satisfied that, as a result of the accident at issue in this action, the plaintiff suffered a knee injury that recovered within approximately a month, a significant soft tissue injury to the neck and upper back that recovered within approximately seven months but which has left the plaintiff more vulnerable to degenerative changes in the neck, a concussion with post-concussion syndrome that still causes headaches once or twice a week, but is likely to resolve, a mild post-traumatic stress disorder that is resolving but remains problematic, and a depressed mood.
 Counsel for the defendant suggested that the plaintiff did not suffer a concussion because there was no clear evidence of loss of memory. There is, however, evidence of a loss of awareness, a blow to the head, and ongoing symptoms consistent with post-concussion syndrome. Dr. Duncan, the treating GP, Dr. Bozek, the treating neurologist, and Dr. Hunt were all of the view that Mr. Tchao indeed suffered a concussion and post-concussion syndrome, and I find that conclusion to be consistent with all of the evidence.
 That brings us to the most serious of Mr. Tchao’s ongoing difficulties, his lower back.
 Counsel for the defendant conceded that Mr. Tchao suffered a soft tissue injury to his lower back in the accident, but submitted that Mr. Tchao had recovered from that injury by some point in 2005, and that his ongoing symptoms relate to his pre-existing degenerative condition. He based this argument on the absence from Dr. Duncan’s clinical record of any notes of complaints from the plaintiff about his lower back, as opposed to his upper back and neck, in the relevant period. I observe, however, that throughout that period, the plaintiff was attending at CBI undergoing rehabilitation therapy for his lower back, and I do not find it surprising that during the course of that treatment, he did not raise lower back issues with his GP.
 Defendant’s counsel also urged me to treat Dr. Hunt’s opinion with great caution because of his apparent advocacy. I find that the passages defence counsel brought to my attention in this regard are more consistent with a certain degree of impatience and curmudgeonliness on the part of a very senior and experienced surgeon, than with improper advocacy. There are nevertheless aspects of Dr. Hunt’s opinion that I am not prepared to accept. In particular, I do not accept his suggestion that Mr. Tchao possibly suffered a hiatus hernia in the accident, nor do I accept his opinion that Mr. Tchao may require surgery in the future as a result of the motor vehicle accident – although to be fair, Dr. Hunt raised these as possibilities, not probabilities.
 I do accept, however, Dr. Hunt’s opinion that Mr. Tchao’s pre-existing degenerative condition made him more vulnerable to injury in the motor vehicle accident (no expert disagrees with this), and that as a result of the effect of the accident on Mr. Tchao’s pre-existing condition, Mr. Tchao suffers from bilateral lumbar facet syndrome. This is supported by Dr. Purtzki’s findings of “predominately mechanical back pain due to a facet joint dysfunction”, and by Dr. Adrian’s impression of mechanical low back pain with radicular features. None of the pre-accident investigations demonstrated any facet joint issues.
 I observe further that regardless of how one characterizes the effect of the accident on Mr. Tchao’s pre-existing condition, there is no question that the accident aggravated it as noted by the defence expert, Dr. Arthur. There is also no doubt that, as reported by both Dr. Arthur and by Dr. Hunt, the plaintiff’s prognosis remains guarded.
 That the accident has had a significant and lasting impact on Mr. Tchao is also consistent with his own evidence. This brings me to the issue of his credibility. In general, I found the plaintiff to be a believable witness. I observed nothing that would suggest malingering or exaggeration on his part, and there is nothing in any of the medical records or reports, including those submitted by the defence, that would suggest that I may be mistaken in my impression.
 As previously noted, the CBI discharge report considered that his perceived functional ability was the same as his actual, demonstrated ability, and that there was maximal effort on his behalf. Ms. Jodi Fischer, who carried out a Functional/Work Capacity Evaluation, administered a number of tests from which she was able to conclude that Mr. Tchao was devoting his best efforts to the evaluation, and was reliably reporting his levels of pain and disability. There were no non-organic findings. I found Ms. Fischer to be a compelling witness.
 In these circumstances, I conclude that, as a result of the effect of this accident on his pre-existing degenerative condition, the plaintiff has suffered a significant injury in the form of a lumbar facet syndrome that causes him ongoing pain and disability, and which has left him with a guarded prognosis.
 There was very little evidence concerning what lower back problems the plaintiff would likely have suffered in the future as a result of his pre-existing degenerative condition, in the absence of the accident. Dr. Arthur, the defendant’s expert in orthopaedic surgery, was silent on this point. I nevertheless find that, as conceded by Dr. Hunt, problems of the sort that plagued Mr. Tchao before the accident would likely have recurred in the future. There is no evidence, however, that they would have been as disabling as the condition in which Mr. Tchao now finds himself. As I will explore further below, he was able to carry on with physical labour at his jobs at Safeway, Nexus and The Blox in the past, but is no longer able to do physical labour of any kind. No expert witness, including Dr. Arthur, has suggested that Mr. Tchao is presently capable of more than light and sedentary duties.
There is a lot to blog about today so I will have to keep these case summaries short. The BC Supreme Court released 3 cases today that may be of interest to people advancing ICBC claims.
The first deals with the choice of forum of where to sue. The Plaintiff was in a collision with a tractor trailer in 2007. The crash happened in Alberta. The Plaintiff lived in BC and the owner of the tractor trailer had a registered business office in BC. The Plaintiff started the lawsuit in BC and the Defendant brought a motion that the case should be dismissed or stayed because the lawsuit should have been started in Alberta.
 The purpose of this statement is encapsulated in British Columbia in s. 11(2)(f) of the CJPTA.
 I do not consider that as between British Columbia and Alberta there is no one forum that is not clearly more appropriate than the other. I am satisfied that, while there may be some advantage to the plaintiff in pursuing his claim in British Columbia, Alberta is the forum with the closest connection to the subject matter of the proposed litigation and that the facts upon which the proceeding against the non-resident defendant is based arise in that jurisdiction. I conclude that Alberta is clearly the more appropriate forum in which to litigate the proposed action.
 I was advised by counsel for the plaintiff that as yet there have been no proceedings commenced in Alberta. Neither counsel were able to advise me whether the plaintiff faced any statutory defences, such as a limitation defence, in Alberta. As there may be defences against the plaintiff’s claim in Alberta if proceedings are brought there which would not be available in British Columbia, I am not prepared to dismiss the plaintiff’s action in this jurisdiction.
 In the result, I will, however, direct that the plaintiff’s action in British Columbia be stayed, pending further order of this Court, should an action in Alberta be met with defences that are not available in British Columbia, or in the event that the plaintiff’s claim is resolved in Alberta.
The second case released today dealt with Court Costs. Typically when a case succeeds in Supreme Court the winner is entitled to court ‘costs’. In theory this is to compensate the winner for having to trigger the judicial process to get whats fair.
After an 11 day trial as a result of a car accident the Plaintiff was awarded $81,694 in damages for injuries and loss. In the trial the Plaintiff’s claim for past wage loss and cost of future care were dismissed.
Subject to subrule (12), costs of and incidental to a proceeding shall follow the event unless the court otherwise orders.
The court may award costs that relate to some particular issue or part of the proceeding or may award costs except so far as they relate to some particular issue or part of the proceeding.
 After analyzing the submissions of the plaintiff and the defendant, I reiterate that the plaintiff’s claims in this action were very exaggerated. I am satisfied that the defendant has established that there are discrete issues upon which he succeeded at trial. I agree that the defendant should receive his costs and disbursements related to the issues of past wage loss and the cost of future care and, conversely, that the plaintiff should be denied her costs and disbursements related to those issues.
 I also agree with the defendant that many of the witnesses testified entirely, or primarily, in relation to the two issues on which the plaintiff was unsuccessful. I agree that the evidence of Mr. Scott, Mr. Parcher and Ms. Keller all concerned the issue of past wage loss. In addition, much of Mr. Johnson’s evidence concerned an alleged lost employment opportunity. I also agree, based on the clerk’s notes, that these witnesses accounted for approximately one day of trial. In addition, I agree that half of the evidence of Mr. McNeil and the two reports submitted by Mr. Carson related to the claim for cost of future care, and that Mr. McNeil testified for more than one day and Mr. Carson for 45 minutes.
 Lastly, I am of the view that there was divided success in this action and I find that the apportionment of costs would therefore produce a just result.
 On the basis of the foregoing, I order that the plaintiff be denied her costs associated with two days of trial, and her disbursements associated with the issues of past wage loss and cost of future care, including the cost of care reports of Mr. McNeil and Mr. Carson. In addition, the defendant is awarded his costs and disbursements for two days of trial.
The third case of interest released today dealt with a car accident from 2003 which allegedly caused severe psychological injuries.
The most contentious alleged injuries were brain injury and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). The plaintiff did seem to suffer from DID, the question was whether the car crash caused this.
 The accident caused the plaintiff’s PTSD, various soft tissue injuries, a pain disorder, depression, tinnitus, and a visual vestibular mismatch which results in dizziness. The accident dramatically reduced her enjoyment of life and caused the loss of various amenities of life. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was a highly functional mother of three with an apparently limitless future. In the aftermath of the accident, her life has been devastated. She can no longer look after herself or her children. She lives in an assisted living facility. She is separated from her husband. Her future prospects are grim.
 While some of the plaintiff’s loss arises from her DID and is not subject to compensation, I find the plaintiff has suffered grievously as a direct result of the accident. The accident clearly terrified her. Much of her loss of enjoyment of life has been caused by her levels of anxiety and depression as she focused on what she could no longer do. She was told that she had suffered a serious brain injury. This led her to believe there was nothing she could do to improve her condition and contributed to her downward spiral. Her tinnitus and dizziness are likely permanent. The prognoses for her TMJ problems are guarded. There is some optimism that her pain disorder will improve given her recent change in medication. Similarly, over time her depression should respond to treatment. Her PTSD, although serious in years immediately subsequent to the accident, now appears to be in partial remission. Absent her DID, the plaintiff would now be on the road to recovery. DID plays a major role in her present situation and limits, at least for the next few years, her future opportunities.

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