When you suffer a personal injury in Vancouver our experienced Plaintiff’s ICBC car accident team will respond immediately to help you get the best medical care and develop your best personal injury legal strategy. Prompt legal advice in a personal injury in Vancouver case is a close second to getting the best possible legal advice. You want the best medical care and you need the best Personal injury in Vancouver legal advice. You and your family ultimately depend on both to regain your physical, emotional, psychological and financial health.
You never expect to be injured but when you are hurt at MacLean personal injury we know its not about the money it’s about justice then it’s about the money. You will meet with us for free and get cogent advice on how to heal as quickly and fully as possible while we deal with ensuring you receive the largest personal injury in Vancouver damages award possible.
In Tomana v. Galvin the court decided a personal injury in Vancouver case involving a Vancouver personal injury victim who suffered pain and suffering and who was concerned her future ability to earn income had be compromised.
So how does a BC judge decide an ICBC injury and personal injury in Vancouver case?
Loss of earning capacity
 There are two questions to address when considering this aspect of Ms. Tomana’s claim. First, has her earning capacity been impaired by her injuries? If so, then what compensation should she receive for the loss she will suffer into the future?
 The assessment of this type of loss is reliant upon the specific evidence presented at trial. It is not based on any predetermined mathematical equation. Insofar as possible, the plaintiff should be returned to the state she would have enjoyed but for her accident injuries. In Gregory v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 144 at para. 32, Madam Justice Garson explained:
 … It is well settled that an individual’s earning capacity is a capital asset: Parypa v. Wickware, 1999 BCCA 88 at para. 63. An award for future loss of earning capacity thus represents compensation for a pecuniary loss. It is true that the award is an assessment, not a mathematical calculation. Nevertheless, the award involves a comparison between the likely future of the plaintiff if the accident had not happened and the plaintiff’s likely future after the accident has happened: Rosvold v. Dunlop, 2001 BCCA 1 at para. 11; Ryder v. Paquette,  B.C.J. No. 644 (C.A.) at para. 8. The degree of impairment to the plaintiff’s earning capacity depends upon the type and severity of the plaintiff’s injuries and the nature of the anticipated employment at issue.
 There are two generally recognized approaches to the assessment of loss of future earning capacity. The first is the “earnings approach” articulated in Pallos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1995), 100 B.C.L.R. (2d) 260. The second is the “capital asset approach” described in Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353.
 The governing principles that apply to the assessment to this type of loss were articulated by Mr. Justice Low and Mr. Justice Smith in Reilly v. Lynn, 2003 BCCA 49 at paragraph 101:
 The relevant principles may be briefly summarized. The standard of proof in relation to future events is simple probability, not the balance of probabilities, and hypothetical events are to be given weight according to their relative likelihood: Athey v. Leonati,  3 S.C.R. 458 at para. 27. A plaintiff is entitled to compensation for real and substantial possibilities of loss, which are to be quantified by estimating the chance of the loss occurring: Athey v. Leonati, supra, at para. 27, Steenblok v. Funk (1990), 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 133 at 135 (C.A.). The valuation of the loss of earning capacity may involve a comparison of what the plaintiff would probably have earned but for the accident with what he will probably earn in his injured condition: Milina v. Bartsch (1985), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 33 at 93 (S.C.). However, that is not the end of the inquiry; the overall fairness and reasonableness of the award must be considered: Rosvold v. Dunlop (2001), 84 B.C.L.R. (3d) 158, 2001 BCCA 1 at para. 11; Ryder v. Paquette,  B.C.J. No. 644 (C.A.) (Q.L.). Moreover, the task of the Court is to assess the losses, not to calculate them mathematically: Mulholland (Guardian ad litem of) v. Riley Estate (1995), 12 B.C.L.R. (3d) 248 (C.A.). Finally, since the course of future events is unknown, allowance must be made for the contingency that the assumptions upon which the award is based may prove to be wrong: Milina v. Bartsch, supra, at 79.
Ultimately, the learned trial judge did not find the Plaintiff had met the onus of proving she had suffered a future loss of income.
 Counsel for Ms. Tomana argues that the residual effects of the accident have left Ms. Tomana less attractive to future employers and to herself, and less likely to be able to achieve her career goals and aspirations. I am not convinced that is so. While she now needs to stand or walk around for short periods during meetings at work, and she no longer has the same level of intensity at work, I do not find that has or will impact upon her ability to perform her current duties. Nor am I persuaded on the evidence before me that the residual symptoms will adversely impact her ability to obtain gainful employment in the future, including promotions to more responsible and remunerative positions.
Personal injury in Vancouver cases are complicated and can involve huge sums of money so you want to hire a senior Personal injury in Vancouver lawyer who knows how to firmly deal with ICBC and someone whom you can have a ready rapport with who listens to you and who understands what you and your family are going through.