Nicholas Peterson, Injury Lawyer

Well said. One expects better. There are solutions to ICBC’s problems that shouldn’t mean ending people’s rights to a fair system of justice when injured due to someone else’s fault. Don’t blame lawyers when ICBC agrees to a settlement value with the client - or - the court sets that value if no settlement can be reached. In both cases justice was served as everyone had a voice and played a role. Blaming lawyers is a lame and obvious distraction and is advocating for ICBC to divert attention away from the real problems and fair solutions. The government now labelling most injuries including brain injuries, pain syndromes and psychological conditions as minor injuries and financially capping them is for the benefit of the insurance company - not the people.

Well said. One expects better. There are solutions to ICBC’s problems that shouldn’t mean ending people’s rights to a fair system of justice when injured due to someone else’s fault. Don’t blame lawyers when ICBC agrees to a settlement value with the client - or - the court sets that value if no settlement can be reached. In both cases justice was served as everyone had a voice and played a role. Blaming lawyers is a lame and obvious distraction and is advocating for ICBC to divert attention away from the real problems and fair solutions. The government now labelling most injuries including brain injuries, pain syndromes and psychological conditions as minor injuries and financially capping them is for the benefit of the insurance company - not the people.

From a recent case, discussing the pre-trial obligations surrounding the disclosure of video surveillance and associated witnesses: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/17/2019BCSC1762.htm

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/16/2019BCSC1697.htm collinspeterson.ca From a recent case:... At times ICBC defendants, in trying to limit an injury claim for fair compensation, will try to have multiple assessments of injury victims carried out by doctors of their choosing. They often seek to do this without sharing the earlier opinion from their earlier doctors assessments of the injured individual. Why is that? To help bolster the earlier defence-assessment or avoid having to share an earlier opinion which they feel may hurt them in limiting the injury claim. In this recent ruling this practice was not accepted by the Court and the defendants application to the Court to compel our clients attendance at another assessment was dismissed. The Court held: [15] The plaintiff points to the test under the rules of court and submits that the decision in Tran v. Abbott, 2018 BCCA 365 did not change the requirement that the defendants must show that this further independent medical examination is necessary. Nor did it change the considerations of overlap and bolstering that were concerns in decisions prior to Tran. I agree with that analysis.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/09/2019BCSC0908.htm From a recent trial, we were able to assist a deserving client. In providing the judgment, the Associate Chief Justice rejected the ICBC-hired doctor who ignored many relevant records in providing his opinion for the ICBC defence.

Important read. Now the government wants to cap pain and suffering for brain injuries, chronic pain conditions, psychological injuries at max $5,500 unless you can prove you are incapacitated or seriously impaired. Oh, and they also say you cannot go to court for this determination if you dont agree with them (ICBC) but rather you must go to a non-court tribunal jurisdiction they created just for this new "minor injury" scheme. Fair?

Well said. One expects better. There are solutions to ICBCs problems that shouldnt mean ending peoples rights to a fair system of justice when injured due to someone elses fault. Dont blame lawyers when ICBC agrees to a settlement value with the client - or - the court sets that value if no settlement can be reached. In both cases justice was served as everyone had a voice and played a role. Blaming lawyers is a lame and obvious distraction and is advocating for ICBC to divert attention away from the real problems and fair solutions. The government now labelling most injuries including brain injuries, pain syndromes and psychological conditions as minor injuries and financially capping them is for the benefit of the insurance company - not the people.

Collins Peterson LLP https://collinspeterson.ca//vancouver-injury-lawyers-addic

Back to school - Drive Safe! https://collinspeterson.ca//vancouver-injury-lawyers-auto-

Collins Peterson LLP: So, maybe now David Eby will reconsider also penalizing victims of car crashes by ending the monetary CAP on fair compensation, which as of April 1, 2019 intends to limit all injury claims to $5,500 if ICBC decides its a minor injury - which Ebys government have quickly defined to include chronic pain and psychological injury. Thats not minor. Why punish innocent victims? Punish the bad drivers - dont also then punish the victims. NO to CAPS on injury claims! This is proof other options exist to improve ICBC besides punishing the victims.

Concussions in Youth and Children - Collins Peterson LLP: collinspeterson.ca https://collinspeterson.ca//vancouver-injury-lawyers-concu

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4707240

https://collinspeterson.ca//vancouver-injury-lawyers-colli

On March 28, 2018, the court delivered judgment on liability and damages in a motor vehicle collision that took place in Vancouver on March 4, 2009. The plaintiff was a parapalegic and incomplete quadriplegic at the time of the 2009 collision from an earlier crash. The court found that despite his pre-existing condition, he suffered extensive additional injuries in the 2009 crash included increased chronic pain, neurological injury and deterioration, loss of function in his a...rms and shoulders, post-traumatics tress disorder and depression, and a very serious pressure wound that developed by his tailbone. The plaintiff also testified that his marijuana consumption had doubled to manage his pain following the 2009 crash from 20g/day to 40 g/day. There was also evidence in the case from the plaintiff that ICBC had not treated him fairly and had cut off his benefits. In assessing the plaintiffs claim, the court awarded him $140,000 for pain and suffering damages stating the following regarding his pre-existing paralysis: [149] The fact remains that the injuries that I find the plaintiff did suffer were serious and have had a very significant impact on him; far greater than like injuries would have on a person who had not sustained the catastrophic spinal injuries that Mr. Kirby suffered. In Fatin v Watson, 2018 BCSC 306, where the plaintiff was a 78- year-old man who had lost much of the function of his right wrist due to the exacerbation of a pre-existing asymptomatic degenerative condition, I referred at para 38 to authorities which acknowledge that in some respects, an impairment of movement may be more serious in a person of advancing years than it is with a younger person; see, for instance,Pingitore v Lum, 1994 CanLII 1050 (BCSC) at pp 11-12, and Bardua v Han, 2016 BCSC 861 at para 43. The same is analytically true to an even greater degree, I find, in the case of a person like Mr. Kirby who has already been severely limited, and can afford little further impairment. The full decision can be found at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt//18/04/2018BCSC0498.htm .

I am excited to announce the opening of our new law firm Collins Peterson - Injury Lawyers. Our focus is on helping injured people recover and our practice remains the same: only acting for those injured due to the fault of another. We act for individuals across British Columbia. ... If you have a moment, check out our webpage https://www.collinspeterson.ca/ for more information!

Exactly. Just absurd how many people the government and ICBC are trying to catch with a minor injury label. They are in this together. Against you! Say NO to caps on claims and let the court decide if necessary.

ICBC and the government are trying to push an agenda with a cap of $5,500 on whatever they determine is a minor injury. Seem fair? Seem like a backroom deal? And they are spending a boatload trying to advertise that it is fair. Maybe they should look at all the other alternatives to save money that dont require stripping injured victims of rights to increase their profits. Maybe they shouldnt spend hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising you losing your rights, rather than looking at ways to curb spending and limit expenses.

From a recent case of mine, anothers blog post with link to decision. A small, minor issue but gives some insight into unreasonable positions being taken: Link to Blog: http://bc-injury-law.com//icbc-ordered-pay-250-misguided-r Link to Case: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt//18/02/2018BCSC0295.htm

From a previous trial, an example of the court acknowledging the long-term impact on a young man working in a physical job with chronic mechanical back pain following a motor vehicle accident OBrien v. Cernovec, 2016 BCSC 1881 http://canlii.ca/t/gv3zk Nick acted for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was a 23 year-old shunt truck driver working for a national railway company. Due to a motor vehicle collision occurring over four years earlier, Mr. OBrien was left with chronic low ...back pain. Mr. OBrien returned to work and his annual income increased significantly since the collision, but following trial the Court agreed his ability to maximize overtime opportunities and those involving greater physical requirements was affected. The medical expert hired by ICBC suggested Mr. OBrien had no restrictions with his ability to work and that his overall prognosis was favourable. Following errors noted on cross-examination the Court held the weight given to ICBCs medical expert was diminished. At trial ICBC argued there was no future wage loss owing to Mr. OBrien: [139] In response, the defendants emphasize that Mr. OBrien has worked all of his regular shifts since he completed his graduated return to work in October, 2012. The defendants say the plaintiffs claim is speculative, and fails to meet the real and substantial probability test. The Court disagreed with ICBCs position. Ultimately the Court awarded Mr. OBrien $192,417 plus his expenses for running the trial, of which trial award included $100,000 for his impaired ability to earn income into the future.

From an earlier trial highlighting the progressive nature of injuries and their longer-term impacts Downey v. OConnor, 2017 BCSC 1459 http://canlii.ca/t/h5jjt: Kelley and Nick acted for the plaintiff, who was an 18 year-old university student at the time of her accident in 2012. Her case was complicated by an accident two months prior to the accident in question in the case. ICBC argued that her damages should be reduced to account for the 2011 accident, but the judge found... that her 2011 injuries had, for the most part, resolved and her ongoing complaints were due to the 2012 accident. Ms. Downey had been an excellent student in high school and was hoping to become a teacher or a counsellor. After the 2012 accident, Ms. Downey left university because of her symptoms and instead enrolled in a 6 month laboratory technician program. She completed this and worked as a lab tech for three years, but she was calling in sick and missing work because of her injuries. She had to stop working entirely before the trial because of her neck and shoulder pain, numbness and tingling in her left arm and hand, and headaches. Ms. Downeys relationship also ended because of her injuries and their effect on her mood. The court awarded $703,321 to compensate the plaintiff for her losses.

Precisely. Caps on minor injuries, which ICBC decides, is not fair nor is it the answer. Say NO to caps and retain your right to have your case decided by the courts if youre unfortunately injured. What are your insurance premiums doing for you otherwise?