When you need a good Soft Tissue Injury Lawyer in Surrey or Richmond, it pays to hire one with experience in dealing with ICBC adjustors and lawyers. What should you focus on in hiring a soft tissue injury lawyer? You want a top negotiator, a lawyer who you can relate to, a lawyer who inspires confidence and a lawyer that ICBC defence adjustors and lawyers respect.
Hiring a soft tissue injury lawyer in Surrey from MacLean Personal Injury means you meet with us for free, we come to your home or the hospital if you are injured and not mobile and we only get paid when you get your settlement or trial award. Our lawyers personally handle your case not a case manager.
A Soft Tissue Injury Lawyer in Surrey or Richmond Will Explain Common Soft Tissue Injuries
Surrey upper body injuries and Surrey soft tissue injuries are very common in car accidents. Soft tissue injuries are the most common injury seen by our Lawyers in Surrey and Richmond from an ICBC car accident. A soft tissue injury is a wound to the body’s muscle tissue, ligaments or tendons. Whiplash resulting from a Surrey car accident is a common example of a soft tissue injury. In a ICBC whiplash injury the muscles and ligaments are jolted due to the force of the auto-collision. This can also cause soft tissue injuries in the back, shoulder and arms. In a forceful car accident your arms may be thrown against the door or hit the dashboard. In a Surrey or Richmond car accident, chest injuries and broken ribs can result from the driver hitting the steering wheel.
Soft Tissue Injury Lawyer in Surrey Explains Injury To A Person Who Already Is In Poor Shape
In the case (Olson v. Yelland) the plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back and and shoulders from a 2012 rear end collision. These injuries lingered throughout the time of the trial. Mr. Justice Weatherill awarded $60,000 in non-pecuniary damages and stated the following:
 On the whole of the evidence, I accept that the plaintiff received soft tissue injuries to her neck, trapezius muscles and mid-back and headaches that continue to negatively affect her function to some degree.
 I find that her pre-Accident lower back and left knee conditions would have significantly affected her ability to function at home and at work in any event of the Accident.
 I find that prior to the Accident and in any event of the Accident, her competitive employability and ability to perform homemaking tasks had already been significantly compromised. The soft tissue injuries she received from the Accident were superimposed on her Original Position and made it more difficult for her to manage her day-to-day activities.
 I find that the plaintiff has made significant recovery from the effects of the Accident within the past three years, but has been left with ongoing neck, mid-back, trapezius pain and related headaches.
 The injuries the plaintiff is left with, and that I accept, are soft tissue injuries to her neck, mid-back and trapezius muscles. They have caused increased frequency and intensity of headaches.
 I accept that these issues continue to affect her, and likely will continue for two to three more years. However, I find that the Accident related injuries pale in comparison to the unrelated issues she has with her low back and left knee.
 While I accept that the plaintiff suffered soft tissues injuries to her neck and mid-back and that she has suffered headaches as a consequence of the Accident, I do not accept that the plaintiff’s Original Position was as functional as she suggests.
 However, because of who she was prior to the Accident, even relatively minor injuries would have a significant impact on the plaintiff. She is now worse off as a result of her Accident injuries and her enjoyment of life has been diminished even further than it was pre-Accident. As Dr. Stewart put it, the Accident was the third strike against her.
 In the circumstances, and following the principles set out in Stapley, I find that a reasonable award for general damages is $60,000. As will be seen below, within this sum I have included the plaintiff’s claim for reduced homemaking abilities.
 In sum, the plaintiff is awarded the following:
General damages: $60,000.00
Special damages: $ 4,220.00
Past Wage Loss/earning capacity: $nil
Future loss of earning capacity: $35,000.00
Future Care Costs: $ 7,276.17
Loss of Housekeeping capacity: $nil