Richmond Soft Tissue Injury Lawyers are crucial to a successful outcome 604-249-2149
Richmond Soft Tissue Injury Lawyers help clients prove and recover the highest possible damage settlement and if ICBC is unreasonable we will make a formal offer to settle and proceed to trial to ensure justice is done
Tragically, so often ICBC minimizes a soft tissue injury or denies that there is anything to be worried about at all. Sadly, many ICBC injury victims feel they aren’t entitled to be made whole because of the way ICBC adjustors talk to them. This is just plain wrong.
Richmond Soft Tissue Injury Lawyers Explain Soft Tissue Injuries Are Serious
A Richmond ICBC soft tissue injury refers to the damage of muscles, ligaments and tendons in the human body. One common example of a soft tissue injury is whiplash, often suffered in Richmond ICBC car accidents. The magnitude of a soft tissue injury can vary from being a minor stiffness to very severe muscle spasms and inflammation. Recovery times from soft tissue injuries vary widely depending on your age, health and how severe the Richmond ICBC soft tissue injury is. Sometimes the recovery time is in months, sometimes months, and some cases last a lifetime. Sometimes the only option is going through a painful surgery.
Richmond Soft Tissue Injury Lawyers at MacLean Personal Injury will hire the best expert medical, vocational, psychological and psychiatric experts to ensure your Richmond soft tissue injury and chronic pain case is resolved fully and more importantly settled generously. Soft Tissue injury is one of the most common and most debilitating injuries a Richmond car accident victim faces. Why let ICBC tell you differently?
Hiring Richmond soft tissue injury lawyers is easy at MacLean Personal Injury we take the time to have a senior lawyer assess your case and handle your case from start to finish so you don’t have to worry that a legal assistant or case manger is trying to manage your file without hands out control and direct supervision from a senior personal injury lawyer. We meet with you for free and we get paid only when you do.
In the case (Woelders v. Gaudette 2016) the Plaintiff suffered a multitude of injuries after being rear ended in an auto-collision in which the Defendant admitted fault to. It was contested at trial whether the accident is the cause of her cluster of persistent residual symptoms including, headaches, muscular tension, and pain that she has been suffering from. Madam Justice Ballance recently awarded $85,000 in non pecuniary damages.
Richmond Soft Tissue Injury Lawyers Obtain Highest Fair Damage Awards
In her decision Madame Justice Ballance set out her reasons for reaching her conclusion:
There is no dispute that Ms. Woelders sustained soft tissue injuries from the Accident. The primary issue of contention is whether the Accident is the cause of her cluster of persistent residual symptoms including, headaches, muscular tension, and pain, particularly in her face and jaw and in the region encompassing her neck, upper back and right shoulder. Related issues in dispute include the impact of her injuries on her functional abilities and future work capacity.
 The ill‑effects of the Accident have negatively impacted the quality and enjoyment of Ms. Woelders’ interactions with her children. She experienced pain and difficulty nursing her youngest and lifting and carrying both her children. She is reluctant to pick them up for fear she will trigger her symptoms. She goes through much of her life on-guard, evaluating whether certain movements will activate her symptoms and trying to make the modifications that may be required.
 Ms. Woelders is from a close‑knit family. Since the Accident, she has curtailed her participation in family gatherings, has all but ceased organizing them, and feels the need to leave get‑togethers early when her symptoms flare.
 I accept the evidence of Ms. Woelders’ twin sister, Ann Pimentel, to the effect that Ms. Woelders was in peak physical condition before the Accident. Ms. Pimentel spoke with emotion about how her sister’s injuries have visibly aged her and that she had lost her “spark” after the Accident. Ms. Woelders’ husband and mother gave similar testimony, which I also accept.
 Ms. Woelders’ formerly high-energy and optimistic personality has been overshadowed by a less positive, more serious self with less energy and spark. I accept her mother’s evidence that she has recently made a point of taking the children after school on Fridays primarily because her daughter is drained at the end of the work week and needs time to rest and rejuvenate.
 The medical evidence indicates that Ms. Woelders will be prone to headaches and periods of aggravation of her unresolved symptoms for years to come, and likely indefinitely to one degree or another. In prior cases, I have observed that enduring pain, even when it is intermittent, can compel unfavourable adjustments to one’s work life and lifestyle and cloud the pleasures of life, as it clearly has in Ms. Woelders’ case. Taking care to not aggravate her residual symptoms and trying to manage her pain, even during the times that things seem to be under control, has become part of Ms. Woelders’ everyday life or, as she aptly put it, her “new normal”. This is an unwelcome new reality for Ms. Woelders and her family.
 Ms. Woelders finds certain kinds of housework difficult. Although she continues to perform most of her pre‑Accident share of the housekeeping, it is not done to her pre‑Accident standards. The evidence concerning her compromised housekeeping capacity was under‑developed at trial. I accept that she has impairments in this regard but am not persuaded that they justify a stand-alone award of damages as Ms. Woelders has urged. Instead, I have considered it as a factor in the assessment of her non-pecuniary damages.
 I have reviewed the authorities placed before me by counsel. The cases submitted by the defendant are, for the most part, factually distinguishable in material ways and are less instructive than those relied by Ms. Woelders. In any event, the case law only provides rough guidelines for what is, at its core, a highly individualized assessment: Karim v. Li, 2015 BCSC 498 at para. 120. Having regard to the Stapley factors and to the other case authorities in the context of the evidence in the case at hand, in my opinion, a fair and reasonable award for Ms. Woelders’ non-pecuniary damages is $85,000.