Earlier this year, we announced a noteworthy trial win against ICBC by Holness and Small Law Group.
We are extremely pleased and proud to announce another recent trial win against ICBC for our client.
Our 35 year-old client suffered significant life altering injuries in a high speed rear-end motor vehicle accident which occurred in August 2016. His most significant and disabling injury was a disc extrusion to his low back which caused severe low back and nerve pain down his leg.
Approximately 3 years before the collision, our client suffered from similar low back and leg pain due to a disc herniation. A disc herniation is considered less serious than a disc extrusion because most will resolve on their own. In fact, this was the case with our client who was pain free without any restrictions for a full 2 years before the motor vehicle accident. On the other hand, the majority of patients who suffer a disc extrusion are left with ongoing permanent problems with pain and numbness.
At the time of the motor vehicle accident, our client was employed as a retail sales supervisor. By all accounts, he was a hard worker who was very well respected by his employer. He also aspired to fulfill a lifelong dream of opening and running a restaurant. Outside of work, he was very active recreationally in a number of different activities.
After the motor vehicle accident, our client was off work due to pain for 6 months returning on a graduated basis with reduced hours and modified duties. Determined to provide financially for his family, he worked closely with his family doctor to increase his hours at work despite struggling with pain and significant flare-ups. He eventually reached a point just prior to trial where he could no longer continue working at the same pace. His medical team and the medical experts all supported a reduction of his work hours to part-time which was more manageable for him to maintain.
The experts testified that his injuries and pain were permanent and consistent with what was expected from a disc extrusion. Our client and all of the witnesses from his wife to his employer and friends were all found to be credible and consistent with their evidence.
At trial, ICBC argued that our client was not credible and that he exaggerated his pain because he worked full-time for a period after the accident. ICBC also argued that his pre-existing condition was the cause of his current disc extrusion and that his claim should be reduced for failing to undergo surgery or seek therapy for a period of time. None of these arguments were based on evidence.
In the Reasons for Judgment, the trial judge made a substantial award to compensate our client for the devastating impact his injuries have had on all aspects of his life. His evidence was considered consistent and credible. Our expert evidence was fully accepted by the trial judge. All of ICBC’s baseless and unjustified arguments were rejected.
All in all, this was a resounding and overwhelming victory against ICBC for our very deserving client.
