$170,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Hip Injury, PTSD, TOS and Chronic Pain

Source: Erik Magraken BC Injury and ICBC Claims Blog

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a plaintiff who suffered a host of injuries in a vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Firman v. Asadi) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 collision.  The Defendant denied fault but was found liable at trial.  The collision resulted in multiple injuries including a torn labrum, thoracic outlet syndrome, PTSD and chronic pain.  Prognosis for full recovery was poor.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $170,000 Mr. Justice Verhoeven provided the following reasons:

[145]     Based upon the abundant medical evidence as well as the evidence of the plaintiff and other evidence of the lay witnesses, I find that the plaintiff’s injuries that she attributes to the MVA and as reported to the treatment providers and medical experts were caused by the MVA.

[146]     As noted, there is much overlap in the specific diagnoses found in the medical evidence.  In more general terms, the plaintiff’s injuries sustained in the MVA are: (1) left hip injury, including torn labrum, requiring surgery;  (2) TOS or thoracic outlet syndrome, requiring surgery, and with further surgery recommended; (3) whiplash injuries (myofascial pain syndrome, mechanical spine pain) and resultant chronic pain, particularly in her upper back, left shoulder, and arm; (4) left shoulder tendinopathy; (5) chronic headaches; (6) mood or psychological/psychiatric disorders, including depression, somatic symptom disorder, and anxiety.

[147]     The defendants dispute the diagnosis of PTSD, made by Dr. Schweighofer. Dr. Iso noted PTSD “symptoms”.  In the circumstances of this case, the question of whether the plaintiff fully meets the criteria for this diagnosis is of little practical consequence. Dr. Waraich noted that her symptoms meet the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD, with one exception. He states that, while a diagnosis of delayed onset PTSD could be made, in his view her PTSD symptoms are “better accounted for” by the diagnoses that he makes: depressive disorder, and somatic symptom disorder. However, he added:

…in my opinion, her future course and potential treatment of PTSD symptoms are relevant despite her not meeting full criteria for PTSD in my assessment.

[148]     The prognosis for substantial improvement is poor…

[218]     The evidence discloses that the plaintiff has suffered a very substantial non-pecuniary loss.  She is now only marginally able to continue with her former occupations, and passions in life, fitness training and barbering. Her physical and psychological injuries as outlined previously are substantial, and likely permanent to a large extent at least.  She has endured a great deal of pain and suffering, which will continue indefinitely. She has undergone two surgeries and a third surgery is likely, since it is recommended and the plaintiff says she plans to undergo it.

[219]     Her injuries and their consequences have quite dramatically affected her former lifestyle and her personality. She was previously very physically active. She participated in marathon runs and triathlons, operated a fitness business, and engaged in a number of sporting activities. She was independent and took pride in being able to support herself and her younger daughter, who continues to be a dependant. I referred earlier to the change in her personality noted by the witnesses. She is no longer outgoing, social, energetic and happy, as she was before.

[220]     Her homemaking capacity has been impacted. She testified that pre-accident she kept a tidy household. This is corroborated by Mr. MacDonald and her daughter. She no longer has the ability to maintain a tidy household. Now her house is messy.

[221]     On the other hand, she is far from completely debilitated, and there is a chance her condition will improve, with appropriate treatment.  Her pre-accident condition was not perfect, (in particular, she had symptomatic spinal degeneration, and headaches) and there was some risk that her conditions could have affected her detrimentally in future, as they had pre-accident.  They might have worsened.  …

[231]     Having regard to the case authorities I have referred to, I assess the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $170,000.

$160,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Brain Injury and Chronic Pain

Source: Erik Magraken BC Injury and ICBC Claims Blog

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a mild traumatic brain injury and chronic pain sustained in a BC vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Ranahan v. Oceguera) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 rear end collision.  Although faut was not formally admitted the Court found the Defendant fully liable for the crash.  The Plaintiff suffered chronic injuries from the collision and in assessing non-pecuniary damages at $160,000 Mr. Justice Mayer provided the following reasons:

[144]     I find that as a result of the accident, Ms. Ranahan has sustained mild traumatic brain injury and soft tissue injuries to her spine, which has developed into chronic neck pain, upper back pain, post-concussion syndrome, cognitive problems with memory and focus, imbalance, tiredness, fatigue, tinnitus, eye strain, sleep disturbance and chronic headaches. I also accept that the imbalance caused by her accident resulted in a further injury, the left ankle dislocation with a chip fracture, while coaching a soccer game.

[145]      I also find that Ms. Ranahan suffers from ongoing mood symptoms including irritability, moodiness a reduction in patience and positivity. She is experiencing on-going difficulties dealing with stress. Although Ms. Ranahan admits that prior to the accident she was under significant stress as a result of her husband’s health issues, family and work responsibilities she was managing these stresses and was fully functioning at work and at home and was able to participate in a number of sports and social activities.  

[146]      I find, based on the totality of the lay and expert evidence, that there are no genuine issues of causation in this case. I find that but for the accident Ms. Ranahan would not be suffering from her current physical and psychological/cognitive symptoms…

[157]     I find that, as a result of the accident, Ms. Ranahan experienced and continues to experience physical and emotional pain, suffering and limitation. Relevant facts have been set out earlier in my reasons and there is no need to repeat them.   

[158]     The impacts have interfered with her family and business life but as a result of her stoicism these impacts have been managed to a certain extent. In addition, her injuries have significantly impacted her recreational and social pursuits but she has not been completely unable to participate in some of these activities.  

[159]     I find that there has been some improvement in some of Ms. Ranahan’s symptoms. What is not clear is whether there will be any further improvement. There appears to be a belief amongst some of the medical experts, including Drs. Chow, Johnston and Boyle, that further assessment and treatment may result in improvement. The prognosis of Dr. Chow and Dr. Johnston is guarded.

[160]     Many of the cases relied upon by Ms. Ranahan occupy the higher end of the spectrum for non-pecuniary damages for similar injuries. The cases relied upon by ICBC are in my view at the lower range and the damages awarded in those cases are not sufficient to address the pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of amenities suffered by Ms. Ranahan. 

[161]     Having reviewed the cases provided by the parties I assess Ms. Ranahan’s non-pecuniary damages at $160,000.  

Lawyers coaching B.C. doctors to avoid injury caps under new auto insurance rules

B.C. doctors are being coached by trial lawyers to avoid classifying motor-vehicle injuries as “minor” under new rules that, starting in April, will cap some claims.

“An early and optimistic prognosis will have a devastating impact on your patients’ legal rights if their recovery does not ultimately follow this course,” law firm Murphy Battista warned physicians in a Jan. 24 letter.

“An example of a way in which a patient’s rights can be protected is if the family physician explains they ‘don’t yet know’ whether an injury will cause that patient ‘serious impairment.’ ”

That letter and others like it have prompted the organization representing physicians to urge its members to guard against what it describes as a campaign of misinformation around the changes to insurance settlements introduced by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

“Doctors of BC has been made aware there are letters, flyers and other types of communications being sent to physicians that may contain misleading and inaccurate information about new ICBC regulations for treatment of patients,” reads a Feb. 14 statement from the association to physicians.

Doctors of BC says the changes will not limit patient care or restrict physicians from making independent medical decisions. In fact, it says, patients will have access to more options for treatment.

“Under the new legislation, the overall allowance for medical care and recovery expenses will double to $300,000 to better support patients injured in a crash. ICBC will also pay more per treatment based on fair market rates and customers will no longer be out-of-pocket for most expenses.”

Last year, Attorney-General David Eby described ICBC as “a financial dumpster fire” and announced dramatic changes to rein in costs. The Crown corporation is on track to post losses of $1-billion for each of the past two years.

The provincial government passed legislation to curb skyrocketing payments for minor-injury claims by capping settlements for pain and suffering at $5,500 and limiting when accident victims can sue.

In the newsletter Bridge, which provides “legal perspectives of interest to the medical doctor,” physicians are advised to avoid using the grading system in the paperwork that ICBC will use to determine if an injury falls within the cap.

“Initially, the physician may have attached a Grade 2 [that would fall under the cap] to the patient. It may be difficult to re-classify. In light of this issue, it may be prudent for the physician to initially stroke through the Grades with the statement ‘Not possible to assign grade at this time.’”

The changes have put the government at odds with the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. The group warns that injured individuals are paying the price for financial mismanagement at ICBC. The organization declined to respond to interview requests from The Globe and Mail.

Vancouver lawyer Joe Murphy, co-founder of the firm Murphy Battista, said it is perfectly reasonable for lawyers to point out to doctors the impact their assessments could have on their patients’ rights.

“Unfortunately, you’ll find out if you have an accident that you are not entitled to treatments unless the adjuster decides you are,” he said in an interview.

He said the Doctors of BC statement is itself rife with inaccuracies.

“It is ironic. I’ve read through this, and many of the statements are based on inaccurate or misleading information. I don’t think the person who wrote this read the legislation,” he said.

Mr. Eby said in an interview on Thursday that he has heard from doctors about the unsolicited legal advice they are getting. “I’m glad the Doctors of BC are prepared to step up and warn physicians to call out misinformation when they see it.”

The Doctors of BC was consulted on the improvements to benefits for lost pay and medical rehabilitation for all people injured in accidents − the first major improvements in auto-accident benefits in more than 25 years.

Andrew Yu was one of the physicians who collaborated on the ICBC changes on behalf of Doctors of BC. He said members should not be influenced by lawyers when it comes to assessing their patients. “Some of these letters and brochures seem to offer direction on what words to use or not to use. We support the autonomy of family physicians to use their clinical discretion,” he said.

Source: The Globe and Mail

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Soft Tissue Injuries with Persistent Flare Ups

Source: Erik Magraken BC Injury and ICBC Claims Blog

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for persistent soft tissue injuries with frequent flare ups.

In today’s case (Palmer v. Ansari-Hamedani) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions with the Defendants accepting fault.  The first crash was relatively minor with injuries well on their way to recovery by the time of the second crash.  The second collision caused persistent soft tissue injuries which continued to the time of trial and often flared up with various activities.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Madam Justice Morellato provided the following reasons:

[86]         In conclusion, I find that Ms. Palmer’s suffered from the following symptoms in the months following the Second Accident: mental “fogginess”; nausea, dizziness, balance issues; ringing in ears, a bump on back of the head, bruising in swelling in the forearm and overwhelming nerve tenderness in the forearm.  I find that these symptoms had substantially resolved by the time she returned to full-time work at Dr. McDougall’s office in February of 2013.  Other related symptoms, however, persisted as described below.

[87]         Ms. Palmer’s soft tissue injuries to her neck and back have persisted for some time; however, I find that by the time she saw Dr. Pascoe in May of 2017, Ms. Palmer had substantially recovered from these injuries.  However, I find that she continues to suffer “flare-ups” as recognized by Dr. Pascoe in her August 2017 reporting letter.  Further, as noted above, I also accept that the flare-ups in her neck and back cause occasional headaches, some of which are migraine headaches but these are less frequent.

[88]         The evidence before me has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Palmer suffers cognitive deficits or permanent brain damage from her Second Accident.  Nor am I satisfied that her Second Accident affected or compromised her ability to retrain or attend to further educational pursuits.

[89]         I find that while the injury to Ms. Palmer’s right shoulder and arm is not symptomatic on a daily basis, the injury has not yet resolved and continues to cause her pain and discomfort.  She suffers pain and numbness in her arm when her arm is tired or she holds her forearm and hand in flexed or extended positions.  I am also satisfied on the evidence before me that Ms. Palmer suffers flare-ups of pain in her shoulder area.

[94]         I have also considered the cases counsel have drawn my attention to as well as the related case law: see e.g.  Cleeve v. Gregerson et al, 2007 BCSC 1112 [Cleeve]; Senger v. Graham, 2018 BCSC 257; Knight v. Belton, 2010 BCSC 1305.  In this light, and having regard to the specific circumstance before me, I am of the view that an award of $85,000 is fair and reasonable.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Neck Pain and Headaches

Source: Erik Magraken BC Injury and ICBC Claims Blog

Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for chronic neck pain and headaches following two vehicle collisions.

In the recent cast (McCully v. Moss) the Plaintiff was involved in two separate collisions with the Defendants accepting fault for both.  The collisions caused a neck injury with associated headaches which continued to the time of trial.  The symptoms were expected to continue and flare with heavier household and vocational duties.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Madam Justice Devlin provided the following reasons:

[99]         Ms. McCully is 66 years-old and she suffers some limitation and restriction as a result of her persistent neck pain and headaches caused by the accidents. However, I do not agree that the injuries have a profound or life altering affect on Ms. McCully. I do find that she continues and will continue to experience some pain and discomfort and the medical experts confirm this. Although the medical evidence does not foreclose the possibility that she can increase her work hours or certain activity levels, I find that even where she does attempt these pre-accident activities, her injuries would increase her discomfort and pain.

[100]     While she is able to continue to work as an esthetician, she does experience discomfort if she exceeds working for a comfortable amount of time. Fortunately for her, her schedule is flexible and ultimately she is the one who will determine when she will work and for how long. While she may resort to the use of the TENS machine at the end of a long day to deal with the discomfort in her neck, she appears to be pleased to be able to continue to work for and service her clients.

[101]     I note that she has also returned to playing bridge a few times per week and has participated in a bridge tournament over the weekend albeit with the assistance of her pain medication. Participating in these bridge games is particularly important for Ms. McCully as it provides her an opportunity to engage socially. She continues to engage with her family and while she does not take her grandchildren to the pool she does babysit them at her residence. In a similar vein as Buckle, I note that Ms. McCully’s injuries restrict her from engaging in her domestic and work activities with the same energy and ability she had before the accidents. However, as I discussed earlier, despite having the chronic neck pain and headaches she continues to travel and has done so since shortly after the accidents.

[102]     In the following reasons, I will specifically address the parties’ arguments in relation to a segregated loss of housekeeping capacity damages. However, as I will re-state below, the impact of Ms. McCully’s injuries on her ability to perform household tasks informs my assessment of her non-pecuniary damages. I note also that she keeps a fairly large 2,900 sq. ft. house on a 12,000 sq. ft. lot. Overtime I find that Ms. McCully has been able to do some light housekeeping although she cannot do some of the more physically demanding tasks. Additionally, it is clear that she is more limited in performing yard maintenance.

[103]     There is no doubt that her neck pain and headaches have and will continue to have an impact on Ms. McCully in every aspect of her life to varying degrees. I am satisfied that Ms. McCully is entitled to compensation for the impact the injuries have had on her general well-being.

[104]     Having reviewed the cases provided by both parties, I assess Ms. McCully’s non-pecuniary damages at $85,000.

$95,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Pain with Psychiatric Overlay

Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic pain symptoms with psychiatric overlay caused by a series of collisions.

In today’s case (Sandhu v. Bates) the Plaintiff was injured in three collisions.  Fault was admitted by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff suffered injuries which developed into a myofascial pain syndrome.  She further developed somatic symptom disorders.  Her prognosis for full recovery was guarded.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $95,000 Madam Justice Winteringham provided the following reasons:

[137]     In summary, I make the following findings of fact respecting Mrs. Sandhu’s injuries:

a)    Mrs. Sandhu sustained moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, lower back, buttock, right hip, right ankle, and right knee in the accidents.

b)    Rather than following a typical course of recovery after the accidents, Mrs. Sandhu experienced chronic low back pain affecting her buttock and pain down the right leg and associated numbness in the left buttock. Her chronic pain worsened in the first and second years following the accident and persisted at the time of trial.

c)     I accept Dr. Squire’s opinion that the diagnosis for her physical injuries is most consistent with myofascial pain syndrome of the lumbopelvic area and that the intermittent exacerbations are likely episodic acute muscle spasms and the right leg pain is likely referred pain from the myofascial pain syndrome. I also accept that she continues to experience intermittent neck pain.

d)    Dr. Joy, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Suhail all agree, and I find, that Mrs. Sandhu developed somatic symptom disorders. I note that though their diagnoses were not identical, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Suhail report that she meets the diagnostic criteria of somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, following the accidents.  In addition, I accept Dr. Anderson’s opinion that following the accidents, Mrs. Sandhu suffers from a generalized anxiety disorder.

e)    I find that, as Mrs. Sandhu’s psychological condition deteriorated, her ability to cope with pain was poor. Dr. Suhail’s opinion, with which I agree, was that “as here pain would trigger her anxiety, her subsequent psychological problems would reduce her ability to cope with pain. Whenever she would be stressed and anxious, her back pain would increase.”

f)      Dr. Joy, Dr. Anderson, Dr. Suhail, Dr. Chapman and Dr. Kashif all agree that Mrs. Sandhu suffered from anxiety after the accidents. They disagree about prognosis. I find that the first accident, and aggravated in the second and third, caused Mrs. Sandhu’s generalized anxiety disorder. The medical experts are all of the opinion that Mrs. Sandhu’s prognosis is guarded, particularly if she is unable to address her anxiety disorder. Dr. Suhail indicated some recent improvement and, with ongoing cognitive behavioral treatment, there is some reason for cautious optimism.

[153]     I have reviewed the cases referred to by the parties. On my review of Mrs. Sandhu’s cases, as her counsel admits, the injuries suffered in some of those cases were more serious than what I have found in the present case. Similarly, I have found the cases relied on by the Defendants involved Plaintiffs with lesser injuries than those I have found in Mrs. Sandhu’s case.

[154]     In all of the circumstances, and taking into account the authorities I have been referred to, I am satisfied that an award of $95,000 will appropriately compensate Mrs. Sandhu for her pain and suffering and loss of past and future enjoyment of life, for which the Defendants are responsible.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from ILSTV

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest