The best Surrey ICBC injury lawyers advise their clients early on that regularly following their doctor’s recommendations will lead to the fastest and fullest possible recovery. MacLean Law’s Surrey ICBC injury lawyers also know that following top expert personal injury medical advice will maximize our client’s chances of a successful settlement or trial outcome as well as the money award they get in their Surrey ICBC and Surrey personal injury case.
Our Surrey ICBC injury lawyers note that a recent BC Court of Appeal case emphasized how the trial judge in a ICBC car accident and personal injury case is specifically entitled to determine if the injured victim properly followed the expert medical advice to mitigate the damages that the victim has suffered.
Our Surrey ICBC Injury Lawyers explain early on to our clients that they must pursue all reasonable doctor and therapist recommendations so they can heal as promptly and as fully as possible. You must trust your medical advice and follow it AND it is equally important that you trust and follow your Surrey ICBC Injury Lawyers advice. Our lawyers are as compassionate as they are tenacious in dealing with ICBC. While you focus on healing, we will focus on developing the strongest legal case for you so you can obtain the maximum settlement possible. Meeting with us is free and we don’t get paid our fees until you settle or we obtain judgment for you.
In the decision of Thomasson ICBC lawyers unsuccessfully appealed a ICBC personal injury decision in favour of the injured Plaintiff.
 It is undisputed that Ms. Thomasson sustained injuries to her neck and back and bruising to both knees. She had low back pain and headaches, neck pain, and upper back and shoulder pain. The trial judge found that her condition was chronic and expected to persist “over a very long timeˮ. Ms. Thomasson also experienced depressed mood, had difficulty sleeping, and complained of nausea, fatigue, poor memory and dizziness.
 It is also undisputed that Ms. Thomasson undertook many forms of therapy and treatment for her injuries including massage therapy, physiotherapy, chiropracty, acupuncture, and exercise. The judge found that “she sought out and participated in the treatments that were recommended for her, but none were particularly effective in spite of intense effort on her partˮ.
 It is trite law that the question of whether a refusal of treatment is reasonable or not is a question for the trier of fact: Janiak v. Ippolito,  1 S.C.R. 146 at 172. It is similarly trite law that an appellate court cannot interfere with a trial judge’s finding of facts “unless a palpable error leading to a wrong result has been made by the trial judgeˮ: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 at para. 4.
 As can be seen from the judge’s reasons, he was guided by the authorities that required the defendant to prove two things: that Ms. Thomasson acted unreasonably in not taking CBT, and the extent to which her damages would have been reduced, if at all, had she acted reasonably.
50] It was within the judge’s discretion to accord the appropriate weight to the various modalities of treatment, including CBT, taken by Ms. Thomasson.
 In my opinion, it cannot be said that the judge made a palpable error in his findings of fact with respect to mitigation. The burden was on the defendant to establish that the wide variety of therapies that Ms. Thomasson underwent did not satisfy her obligation to mitigate her damages. It was open to the judge to find that this burden was not met.
Our Surrey Personal Injury Lawyers will meet with you personally at anuy of our 4 offices located in Surrey, Vancouver, Kelowna and Fort St John, BC. Call us now toll free at 1-877-602-9900.