Vancouver car accident income loss lawyers ensure you receive the most generous Vancouver personal injury damage award. Recover more call now! 604-602-9000. In today’s blog, Spencer MacLean Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss lawyer explains how past and future loss of income is dealt with.
Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss lawyers deal with awards to innocent Vancouver car accident victims for pain and suffering and income loss.
Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss awards often greatly exceed the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment awards. A person’s ability to work goes to the very core of their being. Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss lawyers also ensure you obtain the highest income loss settlement possible for past and future wage loss. These awards are often in the millions of dollars and can result in ICBC “policy limit” awards.
When you are the innocent victim of an Vancouver car accident you cannot afford to follow an accident with an even bigger mistake. Meet with Spencer MacLean of ourVancouver car accident income loss lawyers team for free at any of our 5 offices immediately after an accident in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Richmond and Fort St John, BC. If you are not mobile we will come to your home or the hospital to ensure your rights are protected.
Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss Lawyers 604 602 9000
Spencer macLeanVancouver car accident income loss lawyers team member likes the tight summary of how wage loss cases are decided
In the recent case of Chow v. Goodman the BC Supre Court judge who awarded a combined award of more than $1,000,000 explained the test to be applied to an innocent Vancouver personal injury victim.
Studies show that victims of a Vancouver car accident injury recover more when represented by skilled Vancouver personal injury counsel and in particular experienced Vancouver car accident income loss lawyers.
Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss Lawyers Explain Wage Loss Test
Loss of Future Earning Capacity
 In Parker v. Lemmon, 2012 BCSC 27, Savage J. as he then was summarized the principles concerning loss of future earning capacity:
 The approach to such claims is well set out in the decision of Garson J.A. in Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 at paras. 25-32, which I summarize as follows:
(1) A plaintiff must first prove there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss before the Court will embark on an assessment of the loss;
(2) A future or hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation;
(3) A plaintiff may be able to prove that there is a substantial possibility of a future income loss despite having returned to his or her employment;
(4) An inability to perform an occupation that is not a realistic alternative occupation is not proof of a future loss;
(5) It is not the loss of earnings but rather the loss of earning capacity for which compensation must be made;
(6) If the plaintiff discharges the burden of proof, then there must be quantification of that loss;
(7) Two available methods of quantifying the loss are (a) an earnings approach or (b) a capital asset approach;
(8) An earnings approach will be more useful when the loss is more easily measurable;
(9) The capital asset approach will be more useful when the loss is not easily measurable. The plaintiff was in his mid-thirties at the time of the First Accident. His loss is not easily measurable, although there were several realistic projections of earning streams which I will discuss later in these reasons. The capital asset approach is best suited to his circumstances.  I am satisfied the plaintiff has demonstrated, based on his own evidence, the medical opinions concerning his current condition and the functional capacity report, that he is prevented from resuming full-time work as an auditor for the CRA because of the injuries sustained in the accidents. There is hope for some modest improvement, but I do not find that he will return to work full-time in the future, as suggested by the defence. The plaintiff’s part-time status prevents him from advancing easily, or at all, within the CRA. The asset which the plaintiff has lost as a result of the accidents is the physical ability to apply his CGA training over the course of long hours at a computer or bent over files conducting audits or other like activities. He has proven there is a real and substantial possibility of income loss as a result of the accidents.  By the age of 62.1 years, the plaintiff would have accrued full pension entitlement under the “rule of 80” (age plus years of service). It is reasonable to assume he would retire around that time. It is also likely that the plaintiff’s underlying degenerative conditions would have required surgical intervention around this age, based on Dr. Milton Wong’s experience that the symptoms generally appear in older individuals.  Finally, there is some evidence the plaintiff’s condition might improve and he might be able to work longer hours. Mr. Hosking and Dr. Caillier do not believe the plaintiff has reached maximum physical rehabilitation and have made recommendations for physiotherapists and kinesiologists to assess the plaintiff and update his exercise regime. Dr. Anderson recommended psychological counselling, which the plaintiff has not yet undertaken.  Taking Mr. Benning’s conservative estimate of loss of earnings and pension benefits at the age of 62.1 years and bearing in mind that the plaintiff may improve and be able to work more, I assess the plaintiff’s loss of future earning capacity at $750,000.
Vancouver Car Accident Income Loss Lawyers at MacLean Personal Injury are standing by 24 hours a day to talk to you. Don’t delay meeting with us for free. We are only paid when the case settles or a judge gives you your award. Call Spencer MacLean toll free across BC at 1-877-602-9900.