Injury Claim Fees

We charge zero fees until we settle your claim. If we don’t succeed, you don’t pay.

Learn More.

Injured? Get a free claim estimate

Get a free, no obligation consultation. Our office will contact you within a few hours.

Get Started

Mussio Goodman Law Defeats ICBC Low Velocity Defense at Trial

Posted on by Mussio Goodman

ICBC’s Biased Policy Was Defeated Against Our Client in Court

Nobody truly understands the impact of whiplash until they have experienced it for themselves. This painful and often debilitating injury can arise from even a relatively mild collision, and can result in chronic pain lasting from months to years to the rest of the victim’s life.

In spite of this, ICBC has instituted a strict “Low Velocity Impact” (LVI) Program, the purpose of which is to deny any injury claim arising from collisions that result in minimal physical damage to the vehicle.

As argued by Eric Goodman before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Sun v. Sukhan, there is no scientific or medical support for ICBC’s LVI Program, and the Court should not discount the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries merely by virtue of the limited damage sustained by his rear-ended vehicle. The Court agreed:

[23] From the pictures that were put in evidence on the summary trial, the vehicle appeared to have sustained only minor damage, but again that does not mean that the plaintiff did not suffer genuine injuries, nor is it the case that with soft tissue injuries there is always a physical presentation that can be seen or felt. The pain remains real to the victim of the accident, and his credibility is not an issue on this application.

In finding that the Plaintiff’s injuries largely resolved after one year and nine months, the Court awarded $20,000 in damages for pain and suffering.

Mussio Goodman Wins BC Court of Appeal Decision on Injury Causation

Posted on by Mussio Goodman

Mussio Goodman Successfully Wins a BC Court of Appeal Connected to Our Client’s Accident

In Wahl v. Sidhu, the Plaintiff, who sustained soft-tissue and psychological injuries resulting from a car accident in June 2006, was awarded $165,233 at trial. However, the trial judge cut off compensation at June 2009, finding that the Plaintiff would have completely recovered by that time had he been more motivated to mitigate his damages and attend a pain clinic.

 

The British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge’s Decision

On appeal, Wes Mussio argued in the Court of Appeal that the trial judge’s reasoning was not supported by the medical evidence. The Court of Appeal agreed:

[52] …[T]he basic problem here is that there is no evidence that the appellant’s symptoms would have either been reduced or resolved had he undergone the needle test or attended at the pain clinic as recommended by his assessors.

The Court of Appeal found that, since the Plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms were causally connected to the accident, the trial judge had no basis to cut off compensation for pain and suffering and lost wages at June 2009.