Recent Posts

Personal Injury Lawyers in Vancouver

Surrey ICBC whiplash injury

MacLean Law’s experienced ICBC settlement and trial lawyers help injured Vancouver car accident victims looking for a top personal injury lawyers in Vancouver to obtain justice. Judges bear the difficult task of deciding how serious a Vancouver personal injury victim’s injuries are and who is a fault when someone gets hurt in a Vancouver car accident.

  • When you are injured it’s not about the money. It’s about justice then it’s about the money.


  • Call 604-602-9000 now to have a free initial assessment of your Vancouver personal injury case.


  • Why face the highly trained ICBC adjustors and their skilled lawyers alone when you have no experience to defend your rights?

When you get injured you need prompt medical attention AND you ALSO need to meet with one of MacLean Law Personal Injury’s aggressive personal injury lawyers in Vancouver. 

Our experienced team of personal injury lawyers in Vancouver provide the following summary on what the Courts must do to get it right as provided by last weeks case of Zaluski v. Verth,

[136]     The credibility of the plaintiff is a significant issue in this case. Mr. Justice Abrioux discussed the factors to be considered in assessing a plaintiff’s evidence in the decision of Buttar v. Brennan, 2012 BCSC 531at paras 24-25:

[24] In a case such as this where there are little, if any, objective findings except some minor degenerative changes in the neck, back and knee, the following should be taking into account by the trier of fact:

… the assessment of damages in a moderate or moderately severe soft tissue injury is always difficult because the plaintiffs are usually genuine, decent people who honestly try to be as objective and factual as they can. Unfortunately every injured person has a different understanding of his own complaints and injuries, and it falls to judges to translate injuries to damages Price v. Kostryba (1982), 70 B.C.L.R. 397 at 397 (S.C.);

…the court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery (Price at 399);

an injured person is entitled to be fully and properly compensated for any injury or disability caused by a wrongdoer. But no one can expect his fellow citizen or citizens to compensate him in the absence of convincing evidence– which could be just his own evidence if the surrounding circumstances are consistent– that his complaints of pain are true reflections of a continuing injury (Price at 399);

… the doctor’s function is to take the patient’s complaints at face value and offer an opinion based on them. It is for the court to assess credibility. If there is a medical or other reason for the doctor to suspect the plaintiff’s complaints are not genuine, are inconsistent with the clinical picture or are inconsistent with the known course of such an injury, the court must be told of that. But it is not the doctor’s job to conduct an investigation beyond the confines of the examining room Edmondson v. Payer, 2011 BCSC 118 at para. 77, aff’d 2012 BCCA 114;

… in the absence of objective signs of injury, the court’s reliance on the medical profession must proceed from the facts it finds, and must seek congruence between those facts and the advice offered by the medical witnesses as to the possible medical consequences and the potential duration of the injuries Fan (Guardian ad litem of) v. Chana, 2009 BCSC 1127 at para. 73;

… in a case of this kind care must be taken in reaching conclusions about injury alleged to have continued long past the expected resolution. The task of the court is to assess the assertion in light of the surrounding circumstances including the medical evidence. The question is whether that evidence supported the plaintiff’s assertion and, if not, whether a sound explanation for discounting it was given Tai v. De Busscher, 2007 BCCA 371 at para. 41.

[25] In light of the above, an assessment of the plaintiff’s credibility is critical:

the test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities which surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions.

Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 at 357.

When you are hurt our MacLean Law personal injury lawyers in Vancouver are ready to assist you. Why wait to get the highest quality legal help? You already had an accident don’t follow it up with a huge mistake. Get the legal advice and strategy you need from our Personal Injury Lawyers in Vancouver to enable you to work toward a successful injury settlement. Call our downtown office at 604-602-9000 to meet with us today for free.

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