Vancouver Car Accident Injury Lawyers Explain – Fake Injuries Or Fake Tests?
Our highly rated Vancouver Car Accident Injury Lawyers hope that if you are the victim of someone else’s negligence, you are already aware from our previous Vancouver car accident injury lawyers blogs of how important it is to undergo medical testing to determine the exact nature and extent of your injuries. Click here to meet for free in our downtown Vancouver office or have us come to you at your home or in the hospital.
Call our aggressive Vancouver car accident injury lawyers now at 604-602-9000 for a same day appointment.
Some Medical Tests Are Designed To Detect Faking
But did you know that some medical testing may be done not just for your benefit? Our Vancouver car accident injury lawyers know that doctors, particularly those hired by defense lawyers, often will use medical testing to detect malingering. To “malinger” means to pretend or exaggerate incapacity or illness. Experienced ICBC personal injury lawyers like our seasoned Vancouver car accident injury lawyers, who have been to trial, know how Insurance companies attempt to find evidence of faking to win their case, even if the testing or its analysis is not founded in sound science! Regardless, these medical tests can significantly impact an injured victim’s potential recovery.
ICBC Will Focus On Proving You Are Faking and Are Out For A Money Grab. We’ll Set Them Straight!
ICBC routinely argues victims in ICBC car accident are faking or exaggerating their injuries in car accident cases because the pain and disability associated with many injuries, especially soft tissue, is very subjective. Our Vancouver car accident injury lawyers know that there is almost always uncertainty about the severity of the ICBC accident injury.
Our experienced Vancouver car accident injury lawyers warn that ICBC adjustors and ICBC defence lawyers will aggressively try to persuade mediators, judges and jury members that you are not injured, or if you are injured your injuries are minor and all your reports of pain and disability are designed to be a huge money grab. Our skilled Vancouver car accident injury lawyers know ICBC’s veteran team will look for inconsistencies in your initial report and your medical records, and sometimes interview friends and co-workers, conduct video surveillance and background checks, or go on social media sites to buttress their claim you are a fake.
Meet with us now for free to develop a key strategy to maximize your financial settlement. Call us now at 604-602-9000.
Case Points Out Pitfalls When Client Was Not Forthright
Our highly rated Vancouver Car Accident Injury Lawyers will meet with you and all the top medical experts that assess your injuries to ensure your injuries are accurately diagnosed and supportable in a mediation or court of law. Hire one of our top Vancouver car accident injury lawyers immediately after the accident and before you talk to ICBC to ensure your claim is properly developed so you are not falsely accused of malingering for secondary financial gain.
In the recent case of Saborio v. Guitard, 2016 BCSC 385, the plaintiff, 51 years old, had suffered personal injuries in a 2008 motor vehicle accident. She alleged suffering from headaches, pain in her jaw, neck, back, arms and leg. She also claimed that she had suffered serious psychological and emotional consequences as a result of the accident.
Dr. Stanley Semrau assessed the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. He described how, in his opinion, the plaintiff’s symptoms and functional impairments were evidence of a “secondary gain” effort that reinforced the perpetuating effect of the plaintiff’s symptoms. He believed she had taken on a fairly extreme disabled/helpless sick role within her family far beyond what could be reasonably explained on the basis of objective medical symptoms. The doctor could not be certain if the plaintiff’s behaviour was consciously focused on secondary gain; her descriptions exceeded anything he had seen before and this factor suggested there was a conscious desire for secondary gain. He described her condition as being addicted to secondary gain from her family and healthcare providers. He said that the plaintiff’s pain disorder meant the plaintiff genuinely experienced and expressed pain and other related symptoms, but emotional factors had an important role in aggravating and perpetuating the perception and experience of pain symptoms.
Dr. Semrau concluded that secondary gain had a substantial conscious reinforcing and perpetuating effect on the plaintiff’s statements regarding her symptoms and functional impairment.
Justice T.C. Armstrong of the Supreme Court in New Westminster accepted that the plaintiff had suffered a soft tissue injury in the accident that, combined with her psychological problems, developed into a significant pain disorder. Nonetheless, the Court found that much of the the plaintiff’s evidence was not credible; that her characterization of the effects of the accident was exaggerated and that her pre-accident health problems were understated:
225 I have concluded that the plaintiff suffered a level of soft tissue injury in the accident that combined with her psychological problems, developed into a significant pain disorder. I accept she genuinely experiences and expresses pain and other related symptoms but emotional factors have a role in aggravating and perpetuating her perception of those symptoms.
226 I am further satisfied that the plaintiff is motivated by the prospects of significant secondary gain that is causing a continuation of her subjective pain complaints. Her statement during the trial that “somebody has to pay” for her back pain, coupled with her history of abusing the disability resources made available by BC and Canada and her refusal to follow the recommended treatment regimens are compelling indicators that she seeks financial and social gains including the comfort she derives from the care and attention of her family.
227 Her prognosis is poor but there are treatment options that will optimize her chances of recovering to a better level of function. It is a challenge to determine which ongoing symptoms are caused or contributed to by the collision and which symptoms are perpetuated by her pursuit of secondary gain or which symptoms would have occurred in any event absent the accident. This is because the plaintiff’s claim is complicated by the shortcomings in her evidence. As the court stated in Minhas v. Sartor, 2014 BCCA 455, referrring to Le v. Milburn,  B.C.J. No. 2690 (C.A.): When a litigant practice is to deceive, whether by deliberate falsehood or gross exaggeration, the court has much difficulty in disentangling the truth web of deceit and exaggeration. If, in the course of the disentangling of the web, the court casts aside as untrue something that was indeed true, the litigant has only himself or herself to blame. In this case there has been some deliberate falsehood and some exaggeration.
Beware The Testing!
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one widely used psychological test used to detect malingering in those claiming to suffer a psychological or physical injury. The test uses hundreds of true / false questions, and includes a “fake bad scale” or FBS, relying on a subset of questions designed to detect whether an individual is faking an injury.
Other tests don’t use paper and pencil, and instead would appear to be part of a normal doctor’s examination. You may even be undergoing the test without realizing it, as the doctor talks with you, checks for tenderness, and interprets your demeanor. You likely will not even be aware that the physician is checking for symptoms or signs of malingering during these tests! “Waddell’s” signs, are a series of behaviors used by doctors to detect those faking low back pain. The “Hoover” test is another exam that the doctor may use to try and determine whether an individual is faking an injury.
Strategic and knowledgeable ICBC personal injury lawyers such as our highly rated Vancouver Car Accident Injury Lawyers will aggressively challenge the use of these tests in court, and challenge the use of the test results in trial. The manner in which defence doctors administer and interpret testing data is significant in a personal injury case. An experienced personal injury attorney should check the data and procedures to ensure that the findings are reliable.