BLOG

Recent Posts

Fort St John Brain Injury Lawyers

ICBC Personal Injury Lawyers

Fort St John Brain Injury Lawyers

Our Fort St John brain injury lawyers deal with North Peace brain injuries ranging from mild traumatic brain injury to even more catastrophic Fort St John brain injury cases. Fort St John and Dawson Creek brain injury victims need to call us immediately at 250-262-5052Our experienced and aggressive Fort St John brain Injury lawyers handling these heartbreaking cases will leave no medical or legal stone unturned to ensure you obtain the fullest medical recovery coupled with the largest brain injury settlements. Fort St John ICBC brain injury victims can suffer cognitive impairment, speech and language issues, perceptual difficulties, impulse control issues, seizures, personality changes including rage and depression all rendering them less or completely incapable of holding their old job and supporting themselves or their families.  Our skilled Fort St John brain injury lawyers can help so meet with us for a free initial consultation.

MacLean Personal Injury Handles Serious Brain Injury Cases To Ensure The Best Recovery Possible

Spencer MacLean, MacLean Law

Fort St John Brain Injury lawyers member Spencer MacLean has a perfect 5 star rating on lawyerratingz

Our Fort St John brain injury lawyers handle the most difficult and contentious ICBC brain injury cases across the province and we have fully staffed offices across BC in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and of course in Fort St John and Dawson Creek BC.

Top rated personal injury and Fort St John brian injury lawyers team member Spencer MacLean works out of our Fort St John office with our personal injury department head and he is happy to meet with you at our Fort St John office or at your home or even the hospital in fort St John and Dawson Creek  BC.

Our Fort St John Brain Injury Lawyers Understand The North Peace Car Accident Injury

Our Fort St John brain injury lawyers handle these type of heartbreaking injuries all the time for our northern clients. The difficult weather conditions, size of vehicles and speeds our clients travel at to do their jobs and high wages our clients earn before their Fort St John brain injuries mean we are familiar with the special problems faced in the North Peace from a car accident injury.

Recent ICBC Brain Injury Case Shows The Type Of Massive Wage Loss Our Fort St John Brain Injury Lawyer’s Clients Need To Be Compensated

In a recent BC Supreme Court Case the judge reviewed the principles to be applied to a young man who suffered brain injury leaving him with memory and other mental capacity deficits. Sadly, these issues were expected to prevent him from ever working in his chosen career as a realtor and stopped him from being able to obtain a Business management certificate.

[95]         I have stated above, in my references to the evidence of Mr. Carson and Mr. Szekely, that I accept the evidence of Mr. Carson where there are differences in their opinions, noting that the opinions do not come to particularly different conclusions.

[96]         I am also satisfied that but for the accident, Mr. Nahal would likely have proceeded to obtain a Business Management Certificate and / or a real estate license and could have been on his way to a successful career. Most likely, he would have begun training within months of graduating from high school in June of 2010. At best as his condition currently stands, it is unlikely Mr. Nahal will be able to complete the pre-requisite courses for a Business Management Certificate or the real estate license, primarily due to his memory problems, which I am satisfied were caused by the accident. His failures since the accident, i.e. being dismissed by Home Depot in the fall of 2010, his failure to conclude the real estate exam and his struggles in the one course he took in business management at Kwantlen College, have all affected his confidence in his ability to succeed. Counselling may well assist; however, it is not clear whether or not Mr. Nahal will be able to progress.

[97]         The Court of Appeal decision in Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140, has been referred to and applied in many cases assessing a possible award for future income loss. Commencing at para. [28] the court concluded:

[28]      In Romanchych, the defendant had contended on appeal that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the extent of any real and substantial possibilities of an actual income loss and attributing them weight according to their relative likelihood.

[29]      Mr. Justice Tysoe (in oral reasons) affirmed the trial judge’s approach to the test for future income loss. He held that:

[10]      The trial judge first addressed the question of whether the plaintiff’s earning capacity had been impaired to any degree by the injuries caused by the accident. She referred to Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, 140 D.L.R. (4th) 235 at para. 27 for the proposition that a future or hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation. She also referred to Sinnott v. Boggs, 2007 BCCA 267, 69 B.C.L.R. (4th) 276, which she considered to be of particular assistance because it also involved a young person not yet settled into a career. The judge concluded that a loss of future earning capacity had been proven by the plaintiff.

[11]      The judge then address the quantum of the damages and, in that regard, made reference to the considerations set out in Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 at para. 8 (S.C.). She referred generally to the various contingencies and possibilities to be encountered by a person in the position of the plaintiff and, considering there was a real and substantial possibility the plaintiff will experience an income shortfall during the rest of her working career, she fixed the award at the amount of $80,000.

[30]      Having reviewed all these cases, I conclude that none of them are inconsistent with the basic principles articulated in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R., 458, and Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229. These principles are:

1          A future or hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation [Athey at para. 27] and

2          It is not loss of earnings but, rather, loss of earning capacity for which compensation must be made [Andrews at 251].

[32]      A plaintiff must always prove, as was noted by Donald J.A. in Steward, by Bauman J. in Chang, and by Tysoe J.A. in Romanchych that there is a real possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. If the plaintiff discharges that burden of proof, then depending upon the facts of the case, the plaintiff may prove the quantification of that loss of earning capacity, either on an earnings approach, as in Steenblok, or a capital asset approach, as in Brown. The former approach will be more useful when the loss is more easily measurable, as it was in Steenblok. The latter approach will be more useful when the loss is not as easily measurable, as in Pallos and Romanchych. A plaintiff may indeed be able to prove that there is a substantial possibility of a future loss of income despite having returned to his or her usual employment. That was the case in both Pallos and Parypa. But, as Donald J.A. said in Steward, an inability to perform an occupation that is not a realistic alternative occupation is not proof of a future loss.

[98]         In this case, with Mr. Nahal being involved in an accident two months before his secondary school graduation and not knowing at the time what the future was likely to hold for him, it only makes sense to approach the quantification of the loss of future income on a capital asset approach.

[99]         Considering a capital asset approach, the calculations of Mr. Carson are a starting point. Mr. Carson’s estimate of the potential income for real estate agents and salespersons with entry into the labour market in mid-2013, considering the present value of his future wages and commissions net of contingencies plus 10% for benefits, amount to $1,942,500. From that amount, one can deduct the present value of what Mr. Nahal could have been expected to earn on the same basis with a high school diploma entering the market in mid-2010, which Mr. Carson provides as $1,611,100. The difference between these two amounts, i.e. $331,400, is Mr. Nahal’s estimated loss of future income.

[100]     Other factors must also be considered in determining the loss of future income on a capital asset approach and that would include the likelihood of Mr. Nahal not being able to maintain constant employment in the future due to his limitations. If his memory problems, for example, persist and result in him not being able to cope with his high school diploma entry job or if his problems result in him having difficulty being hired, Mr. Nahal would suffer further losses. I find that interruptions in his term of employment are likely to occur from time to time. But how to value such loss? The only fair means of assessing this likelihood is to assign what must be a somewhat arbitrary sum for these future losses of income. Considering all of the evidence before me regarding the employability of Mr. Nahal, I find that a sum of $75,000, slightly less than 25% of Mr. Carson’s figure, should be added to the estimate of Mr. Carson resulting in a total award for loss of future income earning capacity of $406,400.

Our Fort St John brain injury lawyers will help the injured ICBC brain injury accident victim the best medical care and will create the best legal strategy for you or your loved one BUT it is critical you call us immediately and know ICBC adjustors and lawyers act only for ICBC and not for you or your injured family member. Don’t meet with them or sign anything with consulting with the best Fort St John brian injury lawyers. Call us at 250-262-5052.



alterFantastic Law Firm! Right from the very start, I knew I had called the right people.alter