BLOG

Recent Posts

Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI Lawyers

PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Lawyers

Our Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers handle difficult ICBC brain injury claims involving our injured Surrey car accident victims on a daily basis. The experienced team of Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers operate out of our South Surrey office and we act across the province through our offices located in Surrey, downtown Vancouver, Kelowna and Fort St John BC. Call our Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers  toll free at 1-877-602-9900 and you can meet with us for free to begin to recover the highest damage award possible.

Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers

Spencer MacLean, Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers 604-697-2804

The top team of Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers at MacLean Personal Injury know that a patient with mild traumatic brain injury is a person who has had a traumatically induced physiological disruption of brain function, as manifested by one or more of the following:

  • Any period of loss of consciousness for up to 30 minutes
  • Any loss of memory for events immediately before or after the accident for as much as 24 hours
  • Any alteration of mental state at the time of the accident

Our Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers explain to our clients and their loved ones that some these injuries thankfully resolve relatively quickly BUT no brain injury is minor or something to be treated in a cavalier fashion.  Sadly, Many Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI victims suffer permanent life altering injuries that affect their enjoyment of life and ability tow work. Sadly they can also change the person’s personality and impair their relationships with their friends and loved ones. The financial losses for a victim can easily exceed 1 million.

Our Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers handle these difficult claims on a daily basis.

Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI Lawyers

The case of Towson v. Bergman awarded over 1 million dollars to a woman who suffered a Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI and the court went over the principles involved in coming to a fair money damages award:

[269]        The case of Price v. Kostryba (1982), 70 B.C.L.R. 397 (S.C.) is often cited as a reminder of the approach the court must take to assessing injuries which depend on subjective reports of pain.  At 397-399 of the reasons for judgment, Chief Justice McEachern states:

The assessment of damages in a moderate or moderately severe whiplash injury is always difficult because plaintiffs, as in this case, are usually genuine, decent people who honestly try to be as objective and as 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.

Perhaps no injury has been the subject of so much judicial consideration as the whiplash. Human experience tells us that these injuries normally resolve themselves within six months to a year or so. Yet every physician knows some patients whose complaint continues for years, and some apparently never recover. For this reason, it is necessary for a court to exercise caution and to examine all the evidence carefully so as to arrive at a fair and reasonable compensation. Previously decided cases are some help (but not much, because obviously every case is different). …

In Butler v. Blaylock, decided 7th October 1981, Vancouver No. B781505 (unreported), I referred to counsel’s argument that a defendant is often at the mercy of a plaintiff in actions for damages for personal injuries because complaints of pain cannot easily be disproved. I then said:

I am not stating any new principle when I say that 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.

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.

[270]        Ms. Towson’s claim depends significantly on subjective reports of pain.  The defence argued that her complaints are exaggerated.  The defence argued that Ms. Towson’s actions, such as going on driving holidays, demonstrated that her complaints were exaggerated.

[271]        Ms. Towson’s lifestyle in the six years since the October 2002 accident is consistent with her subjective reports.  She has given up many recreational activities that she enjoyed, including most exercise, and activities requiring concentration, such as following complex plot lines in books or television, beading, and silversmithing.  Her performance in the testing by Mr. McNeil was consistent with her subjective reports.  None of the experts who treated or examined her believed that she was fabricating or exaggerating her complaints.  The observations of Ms. Towson’s friends, co-workers and family are consistent with Ms. Towson’s continuing complaints.

[272]        It is surprising that Ms. Towson was able to return to work for extended periods following the October 2002 accident.  Following that accident, she was off work for about six months, returning to work for almost one year, from March 2003 until February 2004.  She was off work for about another six months, returning to work for another two years, from September 2004 until October 2006.  She was off work for about three months, until mid-January 2007, and then returned to work for about two months, before she stopped working entirely.

273]        The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Towson’s periods of working following the October 2002 accident were difficult, painful, and exhausting for her.  She carried on in the hope of recovery and retaining her job.  These periods demonstrate her determination and perseverance, rather than that she is fabricating or exaggerating her symptoms.

How Is An Injury Compensated For?

[307]        As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lindal v. Lindal (No. 2), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629 at 637, 129 D.L.R. (3d) 263:

Thus the amount of an award for non-pecuniary damage should not depend alone upon the seriousness of the injury but upon its ability to ameliorate the condition of the victim considering his or her particular situation.  It therefore will not follow that in considering what part of the maximum should be awarded the gravity of the injury alone will be determinative.  An appreciation of the individual’s loss is the key and the “need for solace will not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the injury” (Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, Personal Injury Damages in Canada (1981), at p. 373).  In dealing with an award of this nature it will be impossible to develop a “tariff”.  An award will vary in each case “to meet the specific circumstances of the individual case” (Thornton at p. 284 of S.C.R.).

Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers

Our tenacious and experienced Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers will seek the highest damage award for your pain and suffering and as top Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers we know that a past and future wage loss claim for a highly paid ICBC Brain Injury Victim can be huge.

[10]      The trial judge’s task is to assess the loss on a judgmental basis, taking into consideration all the relevant factors arising from the evidence:  Mazzuca v. Alexakis, [1994] B.C.J. No. 2128 (S.C.) (Q.L.) at para. 121, aff’d [1997] B.C.J. No. 2178 (C.A.) (Q.L.).  Guidance as to what factors may be relevant can be found in Parypa v. Wickware, supra, at para. 31; Kwei v. Boisclair (1991), 60 B.C.L.R. (2d) 126 (C.A.); and Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 (S.C.) per Finch J.  They include:

  1. whether the plaintiff has been rendered less capable overall from earning income from all types of employment;

  2. whether the plaintiff is less marketable or attractive as an employee to potential employers;

  3. whether the plaintiff has lost the ability to take advantage of all job opportunities which might otherwise have been open to him, had he not been injured; and

  4. whether the plaintiff is less valuable to himself as a person capable of earning income in a competitive market.

In the end the court believed the victim and did not accept ICBC’s harsh assessment the victim had exaggerated her injuries or failed to take steps to mitigate them. Call our Surrey ICBC Brain injury MTBI lawyers when ICBC tries to say it’s just a mild brain injury or you feel they are not taking your injuries as seriously as they should.

Call Spencer MacLean direct at 604-697-2804.



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