Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers
Our Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers know ICBC can be particularly difficult in settling cases involving chronic pain injury. In a recent case, ICBC admitted liabilty for the accident but steadfastly denied the accident had anything to do with the victim’s Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury. The injured Plaintiff offered to settle the case for a fair amount but ICBC refused to play ball and the matter went to court. Our Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers note both the generous award and the fact ICBC had to pay double costs as a result of their rejection of the plaintiff’s reasonable offer to settle the case.
Meet with Our Vancouver ICBC Chronic Pain Injury Lawyers For Free
Our top reated MacLean Personal Injury lawyers operate across BC from our 5 offices located in Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Kelwona and Fort St John, Dawson Creek. You can meet with our tenacious and compassionate Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers for free and we don’t get paid our frees until yoiur case settles or we win for you in court. Call us toll free now 1-877-602-9900. We handle all types of ICBC personal injury and car accident cases.
Our Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers note the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, Litt v. Guo case awarded damages for a chronic pain disorder caused by two vehicle collisions that ICBC denied had anything to do with the innocent victim’s Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury. Spencer MacLean one of our dedicated Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers provides the following summary of what chronic pain is and how a recent case dealt with money compensation.
What is Chronic Pain Injury?
According to WorkSafeBC policy, chronic pain exists when two conditions are met:
- The pain is still present six months after an injury or an occupational disease;
- The pain is present beyond the usual recovery time for the injury or disease.
WorkSafeBC identifies two types of chronic pain:
- Specific pain — pain related to a physical or psychological cause
- -specific pain — pain that exists without a clear medical reason.
The Court awarded $120,000 after it found both collisions caused various soft tissue injuries which went on to form a chronic pain disorder which was significantly disabling for the Plaintiff. The Judge was unimpressed with the ICBC expert witnesses for being sloppy and having an agenda:
ICBC Denies Accident Caused Any Injury
 This motor vehicle personal injury case deals with the consequences to the plaintiff, Kelly Litt, of injuries that she received from accidents that occurred in 2003 and 2010.  Ms. Litt says that these accidents have left her with ongoing pain and triggered a pain disorder, leaving her unable to continue with a promising career in banking or to fulfil her parenting and other household responsibilities.  The defendants have admitted liability for both accidents, but dispute the extent of the injuries that Ms. Litt alleges she received, and the effects that she says those injuries have had on her life. They argue that the anorexia nervosa from which she suffered as a teenager, or its related effects, would inevitably have had a significant negative effect on her life, even if the accidents had not occurred. They also take the position that her current situation is mainly explained by aspects of her life and by motivations that have nothing to do with the accidents.
Judge Disagrees And Says Two Accidents Really Hurt Plaintiff
 In summary, I will make the following findings on causation and the current state of Ms. Litt’s injuries:
- Ms. Litt suffered moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and back in the 2003 and 2010 accidents, which would not have been significantly disabling in themselves.
- Her physical injuries from the 2003 accident had receded to a manageable level by the time of the 2010 accident, but those injuries were aggravated by the 2010 accident.
- Ms. Litt developed a pain disorder as a result of the 2010 accident.
- Ms. Litt’s pre-existing anorexia nervosa and depression made her more vulnerable to developing depression and other psychological difficulties after the 2003 accident and to developing a pain disorder after the 2010 accident.
- Despite the other stressors in her life, Ms. Litt would not have suffered any disabling reappearance of her pre-existing conditions if the accidents had not occurred.
- There is a possibility of a continued improvement to her functioning and her capacity for employment, based on her self-described improvements to her outlook after beginning to follow a regime of healthy diet, exercise and counselling…
Judge Awards $120,000 Despite ICBC Saying It Should Be Zero
 Keeping in mind the need to tailor the award to the particular circumstances of the case, but to consider outcomes in similar cases to ensure the overall fairness of the amount, I conclude that damages of $120,000 are appropriate under this heading.
Judge Criticizes ICBC Defence Medical Experts
The evidence of two doctor’s on behalf of ICBC was rejected.
 Turning to the evidence dealing with the extent of Ms. Litt’s physical injuries, I find first of all that I am unable to accept Dr. Bishop’s categorical assertion that the outside limit of the duration of her actual physical injuries is 16 weeks. A comprehensive study that he accepted as authoritative shows that there is a greater variation in that recovery period, before even considering the influence of any psychological problems on the experience of pain. In addition, though through no fault of his own, he has no records and therefore no real evidentiary basis to critique the medical findings that were made by others in relation to Ms. Litt’s 2010 accident. While, as I will discuss, there is a good argument that Ms. Litt’s psychological condition has overtaken any physical causes of her pain, I am not convinced that any contribution by her physical injuries ended as quickly as he contends.
 I will start by saying that I find I cannot attach any weight to Dr. Levin’s opinion. He conflates the routine nature of the accidents with the requirement for a diagnosis of pain disorder under the DSM-V that the patient experiences the injuries as “significant, catastrophic or life threatening”. Their objective severity aside, Ms. Litt certainly perceives her injuries as being significant. His assertion that there can be no PTSD here because the accidents were not traumatic also ignores that fact that Dr. Lu does not rely on PTSD to support his diagnosis of pain disorder. PTSD is most prominent in Dr. Lee’s records, and I would not give as much weight to his diagnoses in psychiatric matters in any event.
 More importantly, Dr. Levin made assumptions that are not borne out by the evidence, such as that Ms. Litt’s function was “seemingly unimpaired” in the years following the accidents, which he seems to have based largely on her continuing ability to take family vacations that involved air travel.
 Worst of all in my view, he overlooked or ignored numerous entries in Dr. Lee’s clinical records that had the potential to undermine his opinions. My overall impression was that the primary purpose of his report was to counteract Dr. Lu’s opinion, rather than to address the evidence objectively, and that it was not prepared carefully.
Double Costs were Awarded Against ICBC for Failing to Accept a Reasonable Settlement Offer.
 While I also agree with the comments in Fan (Guardian ad litem of) v. Chana, 2009 BCSC 1497, that a party should not be punished solely for failing to estimate the outcome of litigation, I conclude that in all the circumstances the offer of October 24 is one that ought reasonably to have been accepted by the defendants.  The disparity of about $150,000 between that offer and the ultimate award also weighs in favour of an award of double costs.  The inference I draw is that this had become, as I said earlier, a question of numbers between the parties, in which the defendants elected to take a stand in the face of an offer that was well within the range that could be expected after trial. I think that qualifies as unreasonable conduct for the purposes of the Rule.  As a result I order that the plaintiff will receive double costs from a point slightly after the delivery of her formal offer to settle of October 24, 2014, to recognize a reasonable period within which it could have been considered. In all the circumstances I think that the date that should be used is October 26, 2014.
Vancouver ICBC chronic pain injury lawyers
When You Are In An Accident Call Us First.
If you are in an accident and suffer any type of injury get medical help immediately thenm pick up the phone an dbookm a free consulation with us before you talk to ICBC. Call us toll free now 1-877-602-9900.