BLOG

Recent Posts

Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer

ICBC Spinal Cord Injury Lawyers 604-602-9000

A Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer 604-576-5400 helps you get the highest damage settlement. 

In recent blogs, the Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer team at MacLean Personal Injury has touched on  how detrimental soft tissue injuries can be and how common they are in collisions like ICBC car accidents. In today’s case (Biefeld v. Neetz,) the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck, left shoulder, left arm and left hand while driving on Highway 1 near Kamloops B.C. The defendant admitted that her negligence caused the accident, but disputed that this accident caused all the injuries and difficulties the plaintiff has, and is expected to suffer from.

Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer

Spencer MacLean ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey team member 604-576-5400

Hire A Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer Who Can Handle Standard ICBC Defence Tactics

Our top rated Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer team knows ICBC defence lawyers will argue that, you were not injured, or say your injuries are minor, that you’ll heal quickly, that you suffered no loss or minimal loss and you are part of the recovery problem etc. Our Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer team will aggressively dispute these proforma ICBC defences to ensure you obtain the highest fair soft tissue injury settlement or trial award.

Our lawyers act across BC in Surrey, downtown Vancouver, Richmond, Kelowna and Fort St John and Dawson Creek and we meet you for free at our offices, the hospital or your home.

A Good Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer Knows Whiplash Is Never Minor

Madam Justice Adair found that the soft tissue injuries suffered by the ICBC accident victim were in fact caused from the accident:

 

[149]     I find that, as a result of the September 2007 Accident, Ms. Biefeld sustained soft tissue injuries to her neck, left shoulder, mid-back and lower back.  She also sustained a left thigh strain, which resolved within weeks.  The soft tissue injuries to her low back also resolved within a relatively brief period.  However, the soft tissue injuries to Ms. Biefeld’s neck and left shoulder were significant.  They developed into chronic myofascial pain, radiating from her neck to the shoulder and down her left arm, an aspect of which has been post-traumatic thoracic outlet syndrome on her left side.  I find that, as a further consequence of the injuries she suffered in the Accident, Ms. Biefeld has developed chronic pain syndrome, kinesiophobia and depression, and has developed the psychiatric condition referred to as an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood.  The opinions from the medical experts on these points are consistent with the evidence from Ms. Biefeld that I accept.

 

When assessing damages for loss of future earning capacity Madam Justice Adair pointed out:

 

[184]     There are two stages in assessing a claim for damages for loss of future earning capacity.  First, a plaintiff must always prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss.  If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, then the second stage requires an assessment of the loss.  Depending on the facts, the assessment may be made by either an earnings approach or capital asset approach.  The former approach will be more useful when the loss is more easily measurable.  A plaintiff may be able to prove that there is a substantial possibility of a future loss of income despite having returned to his or her usual employment.  However, an inability to perform an occupation that is not a realistic alternative occupation is not proof of a future loss.  See Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140, at para. 32.

[185]     Chronic pain will not always result in an award for future loss of earning capacity, but the facts may demonstrate that a plaintiff’s chronic pain will result in a substantial possibility that her pain would adversely affect her ability to work:  see Clark v. Kouba, 2014 BCCA 50, at paras. 33-39.

 

Madam Justice Adair assessed Ms. Biefeld’s loss of future earning capacity at $121,100, and provided the following:

 

[201]  In my opinion, an earnings approach (rather than the capital asset approach) is the better approach to assess Ms. Biefeld’s loss, given her earnings history, and I agree with using Ms. Biefeld’s 2013 earnings as the starting point.  I also agree with Mr. Osborne that using an actuarial (rather than an economic) multiplier is appropriate here.  Based on Table 1 in Mr. Benning’s April 17, 2015 report, and my findings concerning Ms. Biefeld’s retirement age, I conclude the appropriate actuarial multiplier is $4,778.  I therefore assess Ms. Biefeld’s loss of future earning capacity at $121,100, and the loss of employer-funded benefits at $15,100.

 

In an attempt to reduce the damages awarded to the plaintiff the defendant argued that Ms. Biefeld had failed to take reasonable steps in mitigation, however this was not successful:

 

[218]     In a personal injury case in which the plaintiff has not pursued a course of medical treatment recommended to her by doctors, and the defendant seeks to have damages reduced on the basis that the plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps in mitigation, the defendant must prove two things:  (1) that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in not following the recommended treatment, and (2) the extent, if any, to which the plaintiff’s damages would have been reduced had she acted reasonably.  The mitigation test is a subjective/objective test, that is, whether the reasonable patient, having all the information at hand that the plaintiff possessed, ought reasonably to have undergone the recommended treatment.  The second aspect of the test is the extent, if any, to which the plaintiff’s damages would have been reduced by that treatment.  See Gregory, at paras. 53 and 56.

[219]     In my opinion, the defendant has failed to meet her burden.

There was no proof for failure to mitigate, therefore Madam Justice Adair concluded this defence was unfounded:

[221]     I also agree with Mr. Osborne that the defendant has failed to show how, if Ms. Biefeld had acted differently, it would have improved her long-term medical outcome (and also her ability to earn income).

Surrey ICBC accident victims often misunderstand ICBC’s role in a car accident injury case. ICBC is skeptical of all claims and often cannot see the reality of an injury given their mindset people may be faking injuries. You need to hire the best Surrey Soft Tissue Injury Settlement Lawyer to ensure you recover as fully as possible and to ensure you get the biggest Surrey soft tissue injury award. Call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900.



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