Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/2015/02
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:22:52+00:00

Document:
Adding to this site’s archives of pain and suffering awards for shoulder injuries, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder injury sustained in a vehicle collision.
 It is undisputed that the accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries. While pain is subjective I do not doubt the plaintiff’s complaints of pain in his neck which disrupts his sleep and pain in his injured right shoulder which interferes with physical activity including his work as a carpet cleaner. The injuries have affected the plaintiff’s ability to work as much as he did before the accident. He works more slowly than before, cannot complete as many jobs and cannot work as many hours in a day due to the pain in his shoulder. I am not persuaded the plaintiff’s drug use had any appreciable impact on his ability to earn a living. The comment recorded by Dr. Tsung about opium disrupting the plaintiff’s life is not tied to anything specific, such as his employment, and I am not convinced on a balance of probabilities the plaintiff complained that opium use was affecting his job.
 The plaintiff is 53 years of age. He experiences pain in his right shoulder when he exerts himself. He experiences pain in his neck at night which disrupts his sleep. There is no cure for either of these conditions. His shoulder may get worse and require him to undergo surgery which in turn carries risks. Notwithstanding the pain and discomfort, the plaintiff has continued to work to the extent that he is able and to participate in his previous leisure activities, such as biking and swimming, albeit it to a lesser extent than before the accident. I agree with counsel for the plaintiff that Wong is very similar in terms of the type of injury involved; however, the plaintiff in that case had an additional injury to her knee. Nonetheless, it is a helpful benchmark. In all the circumstances I find an award of $75,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing damages following a rear-end collision.
 In their reports, Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull both expressed the opinion that Mr. Sirak is not disabled. These opinions are perplexing because it is apparent from their reports that Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull were aware that Mr. Sirak was limited in his ability to work. Dr. Dommisse noted that Mr. Sirak had stopped bricklaying after the accident, and that his pain was aggravated by working overhead and working on a ladder. Dr. Turnbull noted, in his report, that Mr. Sirak was working “on and off as a painter”, on average four hours a day, and only three or four days a week. Both Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull agreed, in cross-examination, that if Mr. Sirak was limited in his ability to work in the manner and to the extent he had worked before the accident, then it would be appropriate to characterize him as disabled. Further, their opinions were based on their interviews and examinations of Mr. Sirak, which took place over the course of about an hour and-a-half for Dr. Dommisse and about an hour for Dr. Turnbull. The nature and extent of their inquiries pales in comparison to the work-capacity evaluations conducted by Mr. Kerr, who expressed the view that Mr. Sirak was significantly disabled. For these reasons, I do not accept the opinions of Dr. Dommisse and Dr. Turnbull as to Mr. Sirak’s disability.
 Mr. Sirak is a middle aged man. He was 45 years old when the accident occurred and is now 55 years old. Prior to the accident, he was healthy, energetic and physically active. It is apparent from the lay witnesses, who testified on his behalf, that he was a cheerful, happy, outgoing person who enjoyed life and had many friends. His family was important to him and he enjoyed spending time with them. He enjoyed participating in a wide range of recreational activities. He worked long hours in a physically-demanding career, and had earned the respect of those in the construction industry in the Squamish and Whistler area.
 For the past ten years, Mr. Sirak has suffered from severe, disabling, and progressively worsening pain and neurological symptoms. These symptoms have very significantly affected all aspects of his life. Even if he undergoes surgery, he is unlikely to experience any substantial improvement. His condition is most likely permanent. He faces many years of ongoing pain and compromised lifestyle. His personality has been affected. He has gained weight. His sleep has been affected. His appearance has changed. He has become sloppy and unkempt. He can no longer participate in most of the recreational activities he previously enjoyed. He cannot play with his grandchildren in the physical, rambunctious way that was his pre-accident nature. This, in particular, has caused emotional suffering. He has become quiet and socially withdrawn. He now spends most of his time alone.
 Awards of damages in other cases provide a guideline only. Ultimately, each case turns on its own facts. Having considered the extent of Mr. Sirak’s injuries, and all of the cases presented by counsel, I am of the view that an award of $160,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in this case.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, largely rejecting a personal injury claim from a Plaintiff who sustained modest injuries in a 2009 roll-over collision.
In today’s case (Wormald v. Chiarot) the Plaintiff was 15 year old passenger in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the collision. The Defendant had a Novice licence and had 9 passengers in her vehicle ‘far exceeding its designed capacity’. The vehicle’s passengers encouraged the driver to speed, who did so and ultimately lost control of the vehicle, rolling several times coming to a stop in a ditch.
The Plaintiff sued for damages arguing she suffered serious injuries and sought approximately $250,000 in damages. The Plaintiff’s claim was largely rejected with the Court noting that the Plaintiff’s evidence was not entirely reliable.
(g) the other occupants planned to throw eggs at people from the moving vehicle (with the reasonable expectation that the vehicle might be chased).
 With respect to Ms. Wormald’s failure to wear a seatbelt, the Court notes that she was not thrown from the vehicle. There was no evidence presented that her injuries would have been any different if she had been wearing a seatbelt. Accordingly, the Court will ignore this factor in assessing Ms. Wormald’s contributory negligence based on the rule in Koopman v. Fehr (1993), 81 B.C.L.R. (2d) 145 (BCCA).
 The Court has also considered Ms. Chiarot’s involvement. She would have known everything Ms. Wormald knew regarding the situation and, moreover, as the driver of the vehicle, would have had control of the situation. Accordingly, Ms. Chiarot was at greater fault than Ms. Wormald. The Court finds Ms. Wormald to be 40% at fault.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries caused by two collisions.
 In summary this 44 year old man has suffered two soft tissue injuries to his neck and back and he has developed related headaches. These injuries cause ongoing and severe pain and they limit his daily activities, including his social life and work. With respect to the former, the plaintiff’s pain contributed significantly to the breakup of a potentially long-term relationship he started with Ms. Briere. Prior to the 2010 and 2012 injuries the plaintiff took over his father’s contracting business and, despite some personal difficulties and problems with record keeping, he was able to feel confident that he had a business that would look after him, as it did his father. That is now in significant doubt.
 All of this has had a negative effect on the plaintiff’s sense of self-worth and emotional well-being. The experts are unanimous that this situation will continue into the future. The defendants’ expert suggests that there may be future improvement but this is put in very guarded terms.
 Taking this into account with the authorities cited to me I assess the non-pecuniary damages in this case to be $70,000.
Adding to this site’s archives addressing non-pecuniary assessments for traumatic brain injury, reasons for judgement were released today addressing a “complicated MTBI with residual symptoms“.
 The Plaintiff suffered a number of physical injuries which I characterize as soft tissue injuries. All healed uneventfully within a reasonably short period of time after suitable treatment by way of physiotherapy and exercise.
 Her most significant injury by far is the MTBI.
 I accept that this injury has caused the Plaintiff mild cognitive impairment in processing, which in turn has impacted memory, mood concentration and focus. The result, not surprisingly, is that the Plaintiff exhibits signs of depression and social isolation.
 Counsel for the Plaintiff referred me to a number of authorities involving plaintiffs with injuries similar to Ms. Mastromonaco, suggesting an appropriate range for non-pecuniary damages is $150,000 to $200,000.
 Specifically, I have been referred to and considered Curtis v. MacFarlane, 2014 BCSC 1138; Watkins v. Dormuth, 2014 BCSC 543 [Watkins]; Danicek v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang, 2010 BCSC 1111;Harrington v. Sangha, 2011 BCSC 1035 [Harrington]; Sirna v. Smolinski, 2007 BCSC 967; and Dikey v. Samieian, 2008 BCSC 604 [Dikey].
 No two cases are alike. At one end of the extreme is the decision in Dikey, where the plaintiff suffered profound cognitive deficit requiring that he have daily assistance with his living requirements for the rest of his life. He also suffered significant ongoing pain. Similar findings were made in Harrington.
 In terms of similarities, the Plaintiff’s present condition, attributable to the aftereffects of the accident, are as follows: irritability, anxiety brought about by stress, poor memory, concentration, distractibility, fatigue and general low mood.
 While not so severe as the 32-year-old plaintiff in Watkins, the case is similar, such that it provides a useful starting point for the analysis. In Watkins, Blok J. awarded general damages of $175,000.
 Unlike the plaintiff in Watkins, the Plaintiff here is not experiencing ongoing headache, problems with balance or noise intolerance. I also take into account the difference in the plaintiff’s respective ages, as Ms. Watkins was 27 years old at the time of she was injured in a car accident. Accordingly, I assess the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss at $160,000.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a Plaintiff who had the misfortune of being involved in 7 collisions.
 I find that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in his neck, right upper back and shoulder and lower back as a result of these accidents (with the exception of accident #4, which appears to have been limited to the neck and upper back or shoulder). He had a pre-existing rotator cuff tear in his right shoulder that was aggravated by each successive accident, as well as pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome (aggravated by accidents #5 and 6) and a degenerative spine condition (aggravated by accidents #6 and 7). He also suffered from headaches from accidents #1, 4, 5 and 7, and the pain resulting from all of these injuries has affected his mood and contributed to his feelings of sadness. He was unable to work for a week after accident #4, for about four weeks after accident #5 as well as a month of reduced hours, for about three weeks after accident #6 as well as further weeks of reduced hours, and for three weeks after the last accident followed by several months of reduced hours.
 The plaintiff is a 51 year old man who prides himself as a person who works hard for his family. He has been the unfortunate victim of seven accidents, which caused injuries that have affected him cumulatively. I consider the cumulative effect of these injuries to be an important factor.
 The plaintiff continues to experience pain symptoms more a year following the last accident, particularly in his right shoulder and the right side of his back. He has problems sleeping and experiences low moods and feelings of sadness. He has changed from a good natured, positive individual to one who is less jovial, less patient of others, and at times argumentative. He has had some limitations in his physical activities at home and at work. Evidence from his wife and from Mr. Poirier and Mr. Murray confirms this. He does little at home and has difficulty carrying heavy objects at work.
 In general, I found the cases cited by Mr. Wilson to involve injuries less severe than those in this case, either due to shorter periods of pain symptoms or reductions due to contingencies that do not apply here. Not surprisingly, none of the cases cited by either counsel involved plaintiffs suffering the cumulative effect of injuries from seven accidents. In my view, general damages appropriate in a case like this range from $50,000 to $90,000. Taking into account the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions (which as I said before do not require a significant reduction), I would assess a fair award here to be $80,000.
Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, finding that it is not reasonable for a Plaintiff to accept a formal settlement offer from a Defendant insured with ICBC where ICBC will first pay off debts the Plaintiff allegedly owes to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program.
The defendants confirm that this offer is made with the acknowledgement that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) has been served with a Notice of Attachment and/or Requirement to Pay and is therefore obligated to first pay to Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (“FMEP”) from the Settlement Payment in this matter. The defendants and /or ICBC are required to first meet any obligation to FMEP before paying monies to the plaintiff in relation to the Settlement Payment, pursuant to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 127 and amendments and regulations thereto.
15 (1) If the debtor has at any time defaulted in a payment required under a maintenance order, the director may serve a notice of attachment in the prescribed form on a person who is indebted or likely to become indebted to the debtor.
 I am unable to make a costs award in favour of the defendants on the basis of the defendants’ two offers to settle as I conclude they were not offers that ought reasonably to have been accepted on the dates the offers were made. I accept both submissions put forward by the plaintiff in this regard. Even if the plaintiff was inclined to accept one of the offers to settle, the condition included in the offers relating to the Notice of Attachment and/or Requirement to Pay from FMEP should not have been a term of the offer. ICBC was not and would not have been indebted to Mr. Loft. ICBC was not a party to the action and its obligation was only to indemnify the defendants for negligence if the court awarded damages to Mr. Loft. As well, the offers of settlement were made by the defendants, not ICBC, and the defendants had no obligation to ICBC if one of the offers was accepted.
Adding to this site’s archived case summaries addressing advocacy by expert witnesses, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding a high billing ICBC expert witness’ evidence should be afforded “very little weight” in part based on advocacy.
 Dr. Levin obtained his initial medical qualifications in the then Soviet Union. There was much questioning of the nature of certain patient treatment at one of the institutes from where he had received his training.
 Overall, Dr. Levin testified that the plaintiff did not develop a new major psychiatric condition due to this motor vehicle accident, and he found that her level of functioning was inconsistent with the diagnosis of a pain disorder found in her family physician’s clinical records. He submitted the fact that she had travelled to Las Vegas and participated in boating with her partner went against the conclusion that she was suffering from a psychiatric condition.
 While I have accepted that Dr. Levin is an expert, I find that his report is to be afforded very little weight given his testimony at trial, and given the extent to which his report strayed into advocacy. It is difficult to ignore the percentage of yearly income gained by the doctor as an expert for one particular party, ICBC, although this alone is not determinative in my finding that Dr. Levin’s report should be afforded little weight.
 In his report, Dr. Levin said that the plaintiff does not suffer from somatic symptom disorder, as the requirements of that diagnosis are a catastrophic perception of injuries, pervasive preoccupation with pain, and time-consuming, excessive activities. However, that is not the criteria set out in the DSM-5 which was put to Dr. Levin. That criteria requires only that there be “[o]ne or more somatic symptoms that are distressing or result in significant disruption of daily life”. Somatic symptom disorder is a spectrum disorder, and Dr. Levin agreed with that proposition, and yet in his report, he was clearly evaluating the diagnosis as existing only if symptoms fall at the severe end of the spectrum.
 Most difficult for the Court, however, was the aspect of Dr. Levin’s evidence discussing the somatic symptom disorder as it applies to the plaintiff. As mentioned, he discussed commentary from the DSM-5 about those symptoms that may occur with severe cases of somatic symptom disorder, rather than the specific criteria. When cross-examined on the actual diagnostic criteria, it became clear that he had not asked the plaintiff questions to determine if she met the diagnosis set out in the DSM-5.
 I do not accept Dr. Levin’s evidence. I prefer Dr. Anderson’s evidence over that of Dr. Levin. Dr. Anderson candidly conceded matters, such as that the plaintiff would have a better prognosis if the physical component of her pain disorder was removed, and Dr. Anderson deferred to the physical medicine doctors respecting the plaintiff’s physical pain. In contrast, Dr. Levin assumed this responsibility and asserted that, as a consequence, the plaintiff did not suffer from any a new psychiatric condition.
 I do not accept Dr. Levin’s opinion and give it no weight.

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