The “Standard of Proof” does not change for subjective injuries.
On April 16, 2015, the BC Supreme Court confirmed that the standard of proof does not change for a tort claim based on subjective soft tissue injuries. In Rabiee v. Rendleman, 2015 BCSC 595, the plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear end collision. The defendant admitted fault but disputed injury pointing in part to the fact that the collision was minor. In accepting the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Madam Justice Sharma provided the following comments about the standard of proof in low velocity impact prosecutions: [62] Given the...
read moreLife insurance claim denied for misrepresentations.
On March 3, 2015, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the denial of a widow’s application for life insurance benefits following the death of her husband, the insured, because the insured had materially misrepresented his medical history in his application for life and disability insurance. In Linden Estate v. CUMIS Life Insurance Co., an insured applied for life and disability insurance. The application included a supplementary health questionnaire to be completed over the telephone. The questionnaire included questions about the insured’s medical history. The insured was asked whether he...
read moreConsultation reports are not “expert reports”.
On February 3, 2015, the BC Court of Appeal released Reasons criticizing and restricting the practice of shoehorning physicians consultation reports into evidence as expert opinion. In Healey v. Chung the plaintiff was injured in a 2005 pedestrian/vehicle collision. At trial the plaintiff claimed it was a ‘catastrophic accident’ and sought damages between $485,000 and $1,037,000. The trial judge rejected much of the plaintiff’s evidence and awarded damages of just over $50,000. In the course of the trial the defendant introduced consultation reports of treating medical practitioners into...
read moreParties to a contract must be honest with each other.
In Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, the Supreme Court clearly stated that there is a duty to be honest in the performance of a contract. Mr. Bhasin, started an action after his relationship with Canadian American Financial Corp. (“Can-Am”) soured. Ultimately, Can-Am refused to renew the dealership agreement it had with Mr. Bhasin. Mr. Bhasin had acted as an enrollment director for Can-Am, which was in the business of marking education savings plans to investors (“ESPs”). Like all other enrollment directors associated with Can-Am, Mr. Bhasin acted like a small business...
read moreOrthopaedic exams have little value in chronic pain cases.
One of the more frustrating aspects of practicing in disability benefits law that that insurance companies repeatedly send claimants who have soft tissue, chronic pain injuries to orthopedic surgeons for “independent” medical examinations to determine their eligibility for certain benefits or the reasonableness of treatment plans. They are requested to perform these assessments even though they are typically outside their area of expertise. More often than not, the assessment finds “no objective evidence on ongoing impairment”, following which, the insurer denies all benefits....
read more
