Recent Posts

Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers

Fort St John, Dawson Creek Personal Injury Lawyer

Our skilled and compassionate Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers understand how awful a Kelowna ICBC chronic pain case can be. Unlike adjustors at ICBC and their defence counsel our Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers know that People who suffer from severe, chronic pain have their lives and those of their families utterly disrupted and damaged. Sadly, our Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers, find all to often, that ICBC and doctors acting on ICBC’s behalf  will tell the victims of a Kelowna personal injury that if no underlying cause can be found for the pain there are very few treatments are available, or worse, “the pain must be in your head”. Nothing can be further from the truth say our tenacious Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers. 

Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers

Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers

You can meet for us for free at our West Kelowna office located within a few minutes of downtown Kelowna and Spencer MacLean handles cases across BC including those in the Okanagan, Penticton, Summerland, West Kelowna and Kelowna as well as Vernon.

We will meet with you for free at our Kelowna personal injury and ICBC car accident claim office or at your home or even at the hospital. Call Spencer MacLean immediately when you are in an ICBC car accident at 1-877-602-9900.

Hire Experieinced and Aggressive Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers

Kelowna chronic pain lawyers Lorne macLean, QC and Spencer MacLean

Kelowna chronic pain lawyers Lorne macLean, QC and Spencer MacLean

Our Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers understand that treatment for a Kelowna ICBC chronic pain injury can involve medications, acupuncture, electrical stimulation, nerve blocks, or surgery are some treatments used for chronic pain. Our Kelowna chronic pain lawyers also are well aware that less invasive psychotherapy, relaxation therapies, biofeedback, and behavior modification may also be used to treat Kelowna chronic pain injury. Our Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers will marshall all the medical evidence to persuade ICBC and their representatives that the pain is real and debilitating so you receive the highest fair money award to help you heal and be restored to your full financial position.


Recent case Explained By Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers

In the recent Bc Supreme Court decision of Carlisle v. Vanthof our Kelowna ICBC Chronic Pain Lawyers were impressed with how the court determined the past and future income loss of a Kelowna ICBC chronic pain injury. The Court held:


[104]     This is a chronic pain case. Although objective indicators consistent with pain might exist, for the most part whether someone is suffering from pain is a subjective measure. How pain affects someone is particular to that person.

[105]     The central question is how have the plaintiff’s injuries affected her vocationally, socially and recreationally over the past 5 ½ years and how will they affect her in the future. The key to answering this question is in assessing the plaintiff’s credibility when she describes how her injuries have affected her function.

[106]     In most respects, I found the plaintiff to be a credible witness and I accept her evidence that she continues to suffer the effects of the injuries from the Accident. I accept that her pain has essentially remained constant since the Accident, with varying degrees of severity. As is usual with these types of injuries, some days she is affected more than others.

[107]     My impression of the plaintiff is that she is intelligent, hardworking and capable. She is probably well liked by her superiors, who continue to push her to sell more hearing aid units.

[108]     She is also a socialite. Her Instagram photos confirm, and she does not deny, that she has a social life that includes numerous wine tours, trips, dinners out and general socializing.

[109]     The medical evidence is more or less consistent that the plaintiff has developed chronic pain from the Accident. The controversy is how it affects her function.

[110]     I find on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff suffered moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, upper back, shoulder muscles, low back, hip and S-I joints as a result of the Accident and that the injuries have not healed. They have developed into a chronic pain condition that is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

I also accept that the plaintiff’s chronic pain plays a role in that underperformance.

[139]     Common experience tells us that stable but persistent energy-draining pain takes its toll on a daily basis and can affect a person’s ability to work as efficiently or enthusiastically as he or she could if pain free. It will affect performance. The comments of Frankel, J.A. in Morian v. Barrett, 2012 BCCA 66 at paras. 39 – 41 are apposite:

[39]      As previously mentioned, the trial judge gave two reasons for finding that there was a real and substantial possibility that fibromyalgia would shorten Ms. Morlan’s working career. The first reason was based on what he described as “common experience” that a person with a stable but persistent energy-draining condition will find it more difficult to continue working as he or she grows older. The second reason, based on Dr. Beck’s evidence, was that there was a substantial possibility that Ms. Morlan’s condition would worsen over time.

[40]      With respect to the first reason, the appellants submit that it was not open to the trial judge to have regard to “common experience” as there was no evidence to support this being so. I disagree.

[41]      Accepting that, to use the expression used at trial and at the hearing of this appeal, Ms. Morlan’s condition had “plateaued”, the fact remains that she would forever suffer from debilitating chronic pain along with headaches, symptoms that could be reduced, but not eliminated, by medication. In other words, throughout each and every day of her life, Ms. Morlan would have to cope with some level of discomfort. In my view, it was open to the trial judge to find—essentially as a matter of common sense—that constant and continuous pain takes its toll and that, over time, such pain will have a detrimental effect on a person’s ability to work, regardless of what accommodations an employer is prepared to make. Indeed, with regard to Ms. Morlan, this is reflected in Ms. Craig’s report:  see para. 34 above.

[140]     Earlier this year, the plaintiff was approached by her current supervisor and asked to work extra hours and weekends to try and improve the clinic’s sales. Without stating her reasons, she declined. Her evidence was that she does not want her superiors knowing the extent of her chronic pain and how it affects her. She puts in her seven hours of work and at that point she has expended her energy. She goes home, relaxes, decompresses and recharges for the next day.

[141]     Sleep continues to be a major problem for the plaintiff. Her restlessness was confirmed by her roommate, who hears her get up in the night. She tried sleeping pills but they made her feel groggy and “drugged” during the day.

Future Loss of Earning Capacity

[151]     The principles are set out by the Court of Appeal in Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 and Graydon v. Harris, 2014 BCCA 412.

[152]     Entitlement to an award for future loss of earning capacity is a two-step process. Firstly, the plaintiff must always prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. If that burden is not overcome, that is the end of the matter and no award may be given. If there is such a possibility, then the second step requires an assessment of the loss. Depending on the facts, the assessment may be made by either an earnings approach or capital asset approach.

[153]     The Court of Appeal recently articulated the test in Gillespie v. Yellow Cab Company Ltd., 2015 BCCA 450:

[34]      There are two stages in assessing a loss of income-earning capacity claim. The first is to establish entitlement. The test for a future loss is whether there is a “real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss.” If the plaintiff discharges that burden of proof, the second task is to quantify the loss on either an earnings approach or a capital asset approach: Perren at para. 32.

At the end of the day our Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers were pleased to see that the Kelowna ICBC injury victim received:

  • Past Wage Loss/Loss of earning capacity:           $23,600.00
  • Loss of Future Earning Capacity:                           $75,000.00

Our Kelowna ICBC chronic pain lawyers are pleased to meet with you to help you achieve justice so you recover as fully as possible and obtain the highest money settlement. 1-877-602-9900.

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