Ms. Roth was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2011. She experienced neck pain and headaches up to her trial three years after the accident. Her doctors thought her injuries did not affect her as much as she claimed. They were also quite optimistic about her future. They predicted that: Continue reading
Dr. Robinson is a senior neurologist in Vancouver who has a very well respected practice treating patients with headaches. He testified recently in the Supreme Court of B.C. in the case of Forder v. Linde.
He gave his insights into the treatment of headaches after a whiplash injury as well as his prediction of the future (prognosis). These would be valuable to anyone suffering from headaches after a whiplash injury.
Mr. Justice Crawford awarded the claimant a total of $835,600 for her damages.
He summarised Dr. Robinson’s report and testimony as follows: Continue reading
Mr. Justice Weatherill concluded in the case of Chingcuangco v. Herback that the claimant suffered a “grade II whiplash” injury, contusion injuries to her chest and lower abdomen, a chest wall strain and a chipped tooth.
“Over four years have passed since the accident and she still suffers from intermittent neck and lower back pain and tension headaches as a result of the accident. I find that it is reasonable to expect the plaintiff will be fully recovered within five years.” Continue reading
On April 25, 2014 Madame Justice Ross gave her reasons in this case. She first quoted the legal principles governing an award for cost of future care which were recently summarized by Mr. Justice Wong… The principles included the following:
After her accident, the plaintiff (claimant) in the Carreon-Rivera v. Zhang case got worse rather than better over time and developed chronic pain and depression as a result of her injuries.
Her one failing, which cost her at trial, was this: she chose to ignore the advice of her physicians to obtain psychological counseling and to take anti-depressant medication for her depression. Her physicians thought that this would have helped but not cured her chronic pain.
Mr. Justice Romilly awarded an injured plaintiff (claimant) $23,000 for her lost ability to perform housekeeping in the case of Kristiansen v. Grewal on April 10, 2014. He took into account:
- the difficulty the plaintiff has had, and may continue to have in the future, in performing her housekeeping duties,
- that she has suffered some loss of housekeeping capacity and
- that she will be forced to incur expenses in the future as a result.
He wrote the following in his reasons for judgement: Continue reading
On June 2, 2014 Justice Peter Rogers gave reasons for judgement in Huntley v. Daley. He concluded that the plaintiff [claimant] sustained a mild to moderate soft tissue injury to her neck with associated headaches and that her symptoms were no longer functionally limiting by one year after her accident. He explained her reasoning as follows: Continue reading
On April 14, 2014 Justice Bruce Greyell gave reasons for judgement in Parhar v. Dawe. He concluded that Mr. Parhar suffered from chronic pain resulting from a whiplash injury he suffered in a rear end collision over 5 years earlier and awarded him a total of $17,820 for “reasonable and medically justified future care service costs”: Continue reading
On April 4, 2014 Mr. Justice Watchuk gave his reasons for judgement in the case of Klim v. Purdy. He awarded $65,000 for Mr. Klim’s pain and suffering (called “non-pecuniary damages or general damages).
Mr. Klim is a 53 year old married man who did most of the housekeeping chores of the family, took care of the family’s garden and did a lot of handyman chores. Continue reading