In a recent Surrey ICBC Cost of Future Care case the Plaintiff claimed $228,000 for Cost of Future Care and was awarded only $28,800. We know our Surrey personal injury clients want clarity on what factors the court properly considers in deciding a Surrey ICBC Cost of Future Care case. Our skilled and experienced Surrey ICBC cost of future care lawyers can provide a free initial assessment of your injuries and discuss a variety of heads of damages to ensure your chances to obtain the highest fair Surrey personal injury settlement are maximized.
Contact us at 1-877-602-9900 to meet with us for free at our 5 offices located in Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Kelowna and Fort St John BC. Our lawyers are fluent in Mandarin, Farsi, Punjabi, Hindi, Russian Spanish, Cantonese and more languages as we know telling your story in the language you are comfortable with increases your chances of a successful settlement.
Surrey ICBC Cost of Future Care – How Is The Correct Amount Calculated?
A Surrey ICBC Cost of Future Care case involves a physical, mental and functional analysis including in-home, physical/functional assessments and interviews to determine any challenges or physical compromises related to the Surrey personal injury victim’s ability to perform activities of daily living.
Spencer macLean and the rest of the personal injury team will create an itemized legal strategy, often coupled with a future care cost report sorts and prices the services, equipment and supplies required to restore the injured individual, insofar as is possible, to their pre-injury roles. Our Surrey ICBC Cost of Future Care will deal with injuries for pain and suffering, wage lost past and future and particularly in catastrophic injuries, ensure the highest fair Surrey ICBC cost of future care award or settlement is obtained for you or your loved one.
In a recent BC personal injury case of Surrey ICBC Cost of Future Care the court explained the correct approach as follows:
 Claims for cost of future care must be medically justified and reasonable. The award of damages must be moderate and fair to both parties: Melina v. Bartsch (1985), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 33 (S.C.) at para. 210.
 In Krangle (Guardian ad litem of) v. Brisco, 2002 SCC 9 at paras. 21- 22, McLachlin C.J.C. stated:
21 Damages for cost of future care are a matter of prediction. No one knows the future. Yet the rule that damages must be assessed once and for all at the time of trial (subject to modification on appeal) requires courts to peer into the future and fix the damages for future care as best they can. In doing so, courts rely on the evidence as to what care is likely to be in the injured person’s best interest. Then they calculate the present cost of providing that care and may make an adjustment for the contingency that the future may differ from what the evidence at trial indicates.
22 The resulting award may be said to reflect the reasonable or normal expectations of what the injured person will require. Jane Stapleton, “The Normal Expectancies Measure in Tort Damages” (1997), 113 L.Q.R. 257, thus suggests, at pp. 257-58, that the tort measure of compensatory damages may be described as the “‘normal expectancies’ measure”, a term which “more clearly describes the aim of awards of compensatory damages in tort: namely, to re-position the plaintiff to the destination he would normally have reached . . . had it not been for the tort”. The measure is objective, based on the evidence. This method produces a result fair to both the claimant and the defendant. The claimant receives damages for future losses, as best they can be ascertained. The defendant is required to compensate for those losses. To award less than what may reasonably be expected to be required is to give the plaintiff too little and unfairly advantage the defendant. To award more is to give the plaintiff a windfall and require the defendant to pay more than is fair.