Another McComb Witten Trail Win

ICBC often tells people that there is not enough damage to their vehicle, so ICBC is not going to consider compensation for the person (ICBC calls this a LVI or low velocity impact claim). This position can be a real hardship for some people who have actually been injured in an accident.

I recently did a trial for such a case, Eom v. Chand, reasons unpublished.

On July 6, 2011 Justice Leask provided oral reasons for the trial. Until days before the trial, ICBC refused to make any offer to Ms. Eom. When the judgment came in, it was for 12 times what ICBC finally did offer. At trial, ICBC said that Ms. Eom recovered within two months of the accident. The problem with that theory is that the evidence of physiotherapist, Angelica Reeve (who Justice Leask called the most impressive physiotherapist he has had testify before him). She was highly trained with a Master's degree from one of the top universities in the world and Angelica testified that she could feel that the joints in Ms. Eom's neck were not moving properly when she treated Ms. Eom. ICBC's theory also did not take into account the fact that Ms. Eom's doctor told the judge that she thought Ms. Eom was only 50-60% recovered at the time of the trial.

ICBC attacked the credibility of my client, her doctor, the physiotherapist. None of the attacks had any merit, but these are the tactics that people often face when in trial. ICBC never came up with any theory that factored in the fact that Ms. Eom, her doctor, and her physiotherapist, may actually have been telling the truth.

In the end, ICBC told the judge that her claim was worth as little as $2000 dollars. Ms. Eom had more in "out of pocket expenses" than that. Justice Leask awarded Ms. Eom $132,042.20 for this so called "LVI denial".

I don't think that the people at ICBC are bad, in fact I have quite a lot of respect for many of the people I deal with at ICBC. Sometimes, however, the bureaucracy of the ICBC machine can squash you unless you have the will and tools (including a good lawyer) to fight for your rights.

Congratulations to Ms. Eom who had that courage to withstand these attacks and candidly tell the judge her story.

By the way, if you are looking for a good physiotherapist in North Vancouver, I can recommend Angelica Reeve at 19th Street Physiotherapy 604-988-5221.

Check out my new updated blog at:

http://personal-injury-lawyer-vancouver.blogspot.com/

Find answers to your ICBC claims at my new blog

Unfortunately, Blogger is no longer supporting changes to this template and I can do little more than add text.  I'll save you from a technical explanation, but I have had to create a new blog.  Find my new blog at:

http://personal-injury-lawyer-vancouver.blogspot.com/

Hataw Pinoy

As a proud sponsor of the Filipino Summer Festival, McComb Witten had a booth where we provided information on ICBC claims and gave away a tonne of great stuff...including a draw for a one once gold coin!!

The festival can only be described as a smashing success.  The main stage showcased a steady stream of amazing artists from child rock star performers to stunning dance troops.  The impact of Singing Idol was obvious as the breadth of talent was incredible..

The food provided by restaurant vendors such as Goldilocks, Kumare and others was nothing short of spectaclar.  We intend to come back at Christmas...even if it is only to get some more of the fantastic Filipino BBQ. 

To all of the people who came by our booth and chatted with us, I just want to say thank you and Hataw Pinoy.

http://www.philippinesummerfestival.com/our-sponsors.html

Will going on a vacation affect my ICBC claim?

As a Vancouver personal injury lawyer dealing with ICBC claims, I get asked this question all the time:

"I had a vaction booked before I was involved in a car accident.  Will it affect my claim if I go?"

Answer: Yes.

The better question is:

Should I go anyway?

To answer this question, you will need to get specific advice from a lawyer on your case...(insert plug here) like the fine lawyers here at McComb Witten who deal only with ICBC claims :-).

I can, however, provide some useful legal information that might help you understand how ICBC may use your vacation to obtain evidence.
  
For years ICBC has asked for photos (with mixed results) from vacations for people injured in BC car accidents and having an ongoing ICBC claim.  A recent decision requires the injured person to produce all photos plus digital "metadata" from their vacations 1 and 7 months post accident.  Here is a link to the case:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/08/2011BCSC0885.htm

In a file I had years ago, a client was required to produce photos from a trip to Jamaica.  She produced a number of photos including one of her smoking a self rolled "cigarette".  Now, I don't judge my clients, but a jury might.  So, the question from a lawyer's perspective becomes "What is a jury going to do with this evidence?"

HST in BC

During the last federal election, I was asked by the Vancouver Sun to participate in an online blog "Family Matters" dealing with political issues from a family perspective.  Following that, the Vancouver Sun asked us to participate in a story theywere preparing on the HST.  We were asked to keep our receipts for a few weeks to see how the HST was impacting our spending.

A few weeks ago the story ran in the Vancouver Sun.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Family+feels+fatigue+sees+some+merit/4998628/story.html

 As I was looking at my ballot yesterday, I was still not sure how I was going to vote.  I see the merit to switching to one tax.  I think the government treated the people of BC with disdain in the way that they implemented it.  The government is still engaged in serious fear mongering and distribution of (at best) slanted information.  The HST was a clear cash grab and hidden transfer of tax burder from business to individuals.  The Fight HST side has shown itself to be little more than an aging former politician who is having a glorous run in the spotlight.

The most persuasive information on the HST (and I think factually honest) is a u-tube video by UBC law student Chris Thompson.  Congrats to Chris (who I don't know and never met) for producing something that appears to be information without a political swing.  If you have not seen the video, check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZXu3LXNwEg

For me, perhaps the deciding factor was Bill Vander Zalm's thoughtless and hollow response to Chris's compelling video.   Vander Zalm essentially resorted to childish name calling.  The answer seemed to me to be illogical and vain.  It did more to discredit Vander Zalm's message than a substantive answer.  In fact, it made me realize that there probably wasn't a substantive answer to Chris's criticisms.  Here is Vander Zalm's response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO1NjpqWDIU&feature=related

Decide for yourself!!

Bus claims

Recently I looked at a number of files where people have been injured when they have fallen as a result of a sudden movement by the bus driver and want to make an ICBC claim. One might think, "so they fell - suck it up", but these people have all suffered fairly serious injuries (all fractured some bone or other).

The reality of our law in BC is that you have to prove that somebody was negligent and that negligence caused your damages (see my earlier post about an ICBC claim that went sideways).

So, just because the Vancouver bus driver slammed on the brakes does not mean he was negligent.

I have two things to say about these bus claims that I've reviewed. First, if you have been injured on a bus and want to make a claim - hire a lawyer right away, because you are more than likely going to mess it up if you deal with it on your own. I looked at two cases this week where I refused one claim because the previous law firm didn't take the proper steps and I looked at another where a colleague of mine at McComb Witten handled it from the beginning. My colleague put together a good claim because he asked the simple question "who was negligent here?" and took steps to find the person who was negligent (and it may not have been the bus driver). Second, don't bother unless you are seriously injured!!!

Need a Physiotherapist in North Vancouver?

In an oral judgment for a ICBC claim for a Vancouver car accident, Justice Leask commended the knowledge and skill of physiotherapist Angelica Reeve of 19th Street Physiotherapy.  Justice Leask confirmed my own opinion of Ms. Reeve when he described her as "extremely professional and thorough."  He went on to say that he accepted her evidence without reservation.

To Ms. Reeve's credit, Justice Leask described Ms. Reeve as the best physiotherapist that he ever had testify in his court.

I can confirm that Ms. Reeve was impressive in her knowledge and had a passion for her work.  Although I have never been a patient, I can say without hesitation that anybody looking for a good physiotherapist in North Vancouver would be well served to give Angelica Reeve a call at 19th Street Physiotherapy.

To make it easy, here is the contact info:

19th Street Physiotherapy
224 West 19th Ave, (the office looks like a house, but it really is the office)
North Vancouver
604-988-5221

Check out the website:

http://www.19physio.com/staff.html

Creating New Law

As a vancouver personal injury lawyer or a litigator in general, it is always a little satisfying to create new law...even if it is simply an incremental change in the law for the better.  Yesterday, in an oral judgment following a trial, Justice Leask moved the law forward in a very helpful way.

Under the Rules of Court in BC, it is very hard to obtain admissions of fact from another side.  There are very few tools to force the other side to make reasonable admissions of fact.  When a party has been found to unreasonably deny facts, the court can award as punishment costs against the unreasonable party.

In the past, the courts in British Columbia have only awarded a complete set of costs as punishment or no costs because the conduct was not bad enough to justify such a harsh penalty.  For some reason, despite having complete discretion to award any amount as costs, courts have not awarded a "slap on the wrists" amount for costs to encourage reasonable admissions.

Additionally, the court has traditionally only looked at lost or wasted court time as a measure for costs.  Considering that only 1% of ICBC claims go to trial, extra burden on the other party ought to be a factor to consider rather than simply lost court time.

In the decision yesterday in Eom v. Chand (as yet unpublished), Mr. Justice Leask awarded $1000 against ICBC as costs for unreasonably denying facts until mid trial.  The unreasonable denial did not take up much court time, but did put the plaintiff at quite a burden.

It is not an earth shattering change in the law, but it is a step in the right direction.