1  JMCA Civ 2 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 46/2010 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA BETWEEN RACQUEL BAILEY APPELLANT AND PETER SHAW RESPONDENT Miss Catherine Minto instructed by Nunes Scholefield DeLeon and Co for the appellant Kwame Gordon instructed by Samuda and Johnson for the respondent 16, 17 July 2013 and 30 January 2014 HARRIS JA  I have read, in draft, the judgment of Brooks JA. I agree with his reasons and conclusion and have nothing to add. PHILLIPS JA  I too have read the draft judgment of Brooks JA and agree with his reasons and conclusions. I have nothing to add.
2 BROOKS JA  On 17 November 2002, Mrs Racquel Bailey suffered whiplash injuries when the vehicle in which she was a passenger, was struck from behind by a vehicle, owned and being driven by Mr Peter Shaw. Mrs Bailey filed suit in December 2004 in the Supreme Court of Judicature, and Mr Shaw did not contest liability. As a result, judgment by admission was entered in Mrs Bailey s favour with damages to be assessed. On 19 February 2010, G Brown J presided over the resulting assessment of damages, which Mr Shaw contested. The learned judge awarded Mrs Bailey the sum of $800, for general damages and $416, for special damages. He also awarded interest on each sum.  Mrs Bailey is dissatisfied with the award. She contends that it is too small, being far less than her injuries and the resultant permanent disability warrant. She asks that this court substantially increases the award. The main issues for determination by this court are whether the learned trial judge misdirected himself in respect of the evidence led before him and whether he erred in accepting the opinion of a general practitioner in preference to that of an orthopaedic specialist. The medical evidence  Twenty-two days after her vehicle was struck, Mrs Bailey, who was by then suffering from backache, sought medical attention. She was attended to by Dr Terrence Nunes. He prescribed analgesics and sent her to have an X-ray done. He also prescribed physiotherapy. Dr Nunes, having reviewed the radiographs and a report from
3 the physical therapist who treated Mrs Bailey, also gave a report on her condition. In his report, dated 14 February 2003, he said, in part: X-Ray Results indicated there were no bony injury [sic] but there were some muscular spasm [sic]. [Mrs Bailey] was sent to do physiotherapy. Report from the Physical Therapist showed great improvement and that she should be doing fine in the future.  In March 2005, three months after filing her court claim, Mrs Bailey sought the services of Dr Milton Douglas, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. He examined her and found that she was still suffering from the effects of the crash. In his report of his findings he stated, in part, as follows: Her gait was normal and her posture relaxed. Her movement was smooth and [sic] was able to get on the examination bed unaided. Tenderness was elicited in the lower lumbar region and the muscles were in mild spasm. She complained of pain on forward flexion, right lateral flexion, rotation of the spine. Her ranges of movement were normal in spite [of] the pain she experienced. There was an absence of neurological deficit.  Dr Douglas concluded that Mrs Bailey had reached maximum medical improvement and that she had suffered a permanent whole person disability rating of five percent. His prognosis explained that Mrs Bailey (whom he referred to as Mrs Clarke in his report) would be restricted in her daily life as a result of the injury. He said: [She] has reached maximum medical improvement. Her injuries are in keeping with a road traffic accident as described above. Her injuries are considered serious. She will be able to continue working in the capacity as an accounting clerk providing she modifies her activities. She
4 will have to be very selective with the kind of house work she does to avoid aggravating her back pain. She does not require surgery, but would benefit from ongoing physical therapy during periods of aggravation of her back pain. The long term prognosis is that her pain will persist in very much the same manner, restricting her ability to tolerate strenuous work or physically demanding tasks. She was assessed as having a disability rating of 5% of the whole person...  Mrs Bailey testified that she encountered discomfort in sitting for long periods and in bending forward, both of which her work requires her to do. She said that although she was supposed to seek treatment from a physiotherapist during bouts of pain, she, once a month, goes to a gym instructor who assists her by massages, certain exercises and using hot and cold packs on her back. She further testified that she was not able to afford the services of a physiotherapist. The learned trial judge s assessment of the evidence  The learned trial judge was not favourably impressed by Mrs Bailey, as a witness. He found that her demeanour was poor and that her evidence was not consistent with her medical history. He noted, in particular, that despite her evidence of her life being adversely affected by pain, her efforts at securing medical treatment for her condition were minimal. He noted that she had only received treatment from one doctor and sought to obtain a report from a second some 2 years later. Allied to that finding, the learned trial judge found that Mrs Bailey did not follow the advice of her doctors in taking the prescribed analgesics and utilising the services of a physiotherapist in times of aggravation of her back pain. The learned judge found that Mrs Bailey had embellished
5 and exaggerated the injuries to justify her claim for the extra help she continued to employ in her household. The submissions  Miss Minto, for Mrs Bailey, urged this court to find that the learned trial judge had misdirected himself in respect of the evidence. Learned counsel argued that the learned trial judge misquoted or misinterpreted the medical evidence in at least two spheres. Firstly, in respect of his finding that Mrs Bailey had not followed her doctors advice, Miss Minto submitted that the learned trial judge had stated, at page five of the judgment, that Dr Nunes had opined that physiotherapy would effectively heal her of the pain. Secondly, Miss Minto submitted that the learned trial judge had opined that Mrs Bailey s refusal to follow doctor Nunes recommendations for a regime of painkillers and physiotherapy could have exacerbated the injuries" (page 7 of the judgment).  Learned counsel argued, however, that there was no evidence that Mrs Bailey had refused to take painkillers. She submitted that Mrs Bailey s evidence was that the painkillers did not assist. Miss Minto also submitted that there was no recommendation from Dr Nunes for her to take analgesics after the initial recommendation in In respect of the physiotherapy, learned counsel submitted that the evidence was that the physiotherapy did not heal her, as, having received the series of treatment by the physiotherapist, that same individual sold Mrs Bailey a [therapeutic] roll for her back.
6  Based on those examples, learned counsel submitted that the learned judge made a wholly erroneous estimate of the damages. In those circumstances, she argued, this court should look at the decided cases and make an appropriate award.  Mr Gordon, for Mr Shaw, submitted that the learned trial judge was correct in finding that Mrs Bailey, in failing to follow the advice of the doctors, had not mitigated her loss, as she was obliged to do. He argued that the findings of the learned trial judge, who relies, in part, on his impression of a witness ought not to be disturbed unless there are good reasons to do so or the judge s findings fly in the face of the evidence.  There is merit in the submissions of both counsel. It is true that the learned trial judge did misdirect himself in respect of some elements of the evidence. Firstly, there was no evidence that physiotherapy and painkillers would have healed Mrs Bailey. Secondly, although Mrs Bailey did say in cross-examination that she did not like to take painkillers, it was speculative to say that Mrs Bailey s failure to follow the doctor s recommendations could have exacerbated the injuries. If that statement were not contrary to the medical evidence, it certainly was not supported by that evidence.  Despite that error, the learned trial judge's assessment of Mrs Bailey s demeanour, having seen and heard her giving testimony, supplied him with a perspective that this court does not have. In addition, there is logic to the learned trial judge s finding that Mrs Bailey s disability could not have been as severe as she had testified. The evidence revealed that she did not seek any medical attention about her
7 condition after seeing Dr Nunes. The learned trial judge found, and that certainly seemed to have been the position, that her attendance on Dr Douglas was solely for the purpose of securing a medical report. It does seem that his assessment of Mrs Bailey s reason for consulting Dr Douglas did cause the learned trial judge not to have taken into full account Dr Douglas opinion as to her disability. Based on Dr Douglas opinion, Mrs Bailey could not have been considered as doing fine, two years after the crash.  These are not irreconcilable circumstances. This court can accept the learned trial judge s assessment of Mrs Bailey s veracity and demeanour, while also accepting the thrust of Dr Douglas report that she does and will continue to suffer adverse effects from her injury. In doing so, however, the court is obliged to review the evidence against the learning provided by the decided cases. The court will however, bear in mind the principle enunciated by Greer LJ in Flint v Lovell  1 KB 354, that the award by the judge in the court below should not be disturbed unless, the court is satisfied that the judge either acted upon some wrong principle of law or that the award was unreasonably high or unreasonably low. Analysing the damages for pain and suffering  With regard to the question of general damages, Miss Minto cited several cases including Dawnett Walker v Hensley Pink SCCA No 158/2001 (delivered 12 June 2003) and Sasha-Gay Downer (bnf Myrna Buchanan) v Anthony Williams and Another Khan, Vol 6, page 124. She submitted that, based on the guidance provided
8 by these cases, an appropriate award for general damages would be between $1,500, and $2,900,  Mr Gordon argued that the cases cited by Miss Minto involved injuries that were more serious than Mrs Bailey s. He submitted that the case of Anthony Gordon v Chris Meikle and Another Khan, Vol 5, page 142, upon which the learned trial judge had relied, was closer to the injury and disability that Mrs Bailey had suffered. Learned counsel submitted that the award made by the learned trial judge was appropriate to the circumstances of the case.  Of the cases cited by Miss Minto, the two closest to Mrs Bailey s, in terms of injury and disability, are Sasha-Gay Downer and Dawnett Walker mentioned above. The other cases cited either had no quantified disability or involved much more serious injuries than Mrs Bailey s.  Sasha Gaye Downer was just over 12 years old at the time of her injury which occurred when, as a result of a motor vehicle crash, she was thrown from a bus onto the roadway. She was treated at the time at hospital and sent home with medication and instructions to rest for 14 days. In December 2003, 10 months after the crash, she consulted with Dr R C Rose, an orthopaedic surgeon. He diagnosed her as having: (i) cervical strain, (ii) mechanical lower back pain, and (iii) strained abductor muscles of the left thigh.
9 Dr Rose examined her again in the months of March and May On the latter occasion the law report shows that Dr Rose found marked tenderness on palpation of midline of the lower lumbar spine. It continued to state that: He diagnosed mechanical lower back pains. He changed her disability rating to 5% of whole person due to precipitation of lower back pains after standing for short periods, performing physical education and bending (Emphasis as in original) Miss Downer was awarded the sum of $1,005, in July That award would have been worth $1,476, when Brown J delivered his judgment.  Dawnett Walker was 36 years old at the time when she was injured in a car crash. The injury to her neck resulted in her being referred to an orthopaedic surgeon the same day of the crash. The injury kept her away from work for over 16 months. She was under the treatment of a physiotherapist for seven months, at the end of which period she was referred to a consultant neurosurgeon, as she was in constant pain. She suffered from extreme pain to her neck, shoulder, upper back and right arm and numbness to the fingers of the right arm (pages 2-3 of the judgment). She also was assessed as having sustained a permanent disability of 5% of the whole person. This court awarded her general damages of $650, in substitution for an award made in December The updated award would have been $1,672, at the time when Brown J made his award to Mrs Bailey.  In Anthony Gordon, cited by Mr Gordon, the 27 year old claimant was found, over three years after a motor vehicle crash in which he was injured, to be suffering
10 from cervical strain, contusion to the left knee and lumbo sacral strain. The specialist, who examined him, found that he had moderate tenderness on palpation of the midline of the whole of the lumbar spine. The specialist also stated that X Rays of the cervical spine, lumbo sacral spine, chest and left knee revealed no abnormalities. Mr Gordon was assessed to have a permanent disability of 5% of the whole person. The report is sparse in its description of the effects that the rated disability had on his life. The award of $220,000.00, made in July 1998, updated to $645, at the time of the assessment by Brown J.  A reading of the cases cited above, reveals that both Sasha Gaye Downer and Dawnett Walker had suffered greater pain and suffering than Mrs Bailey, while the report of Anthony Gordon s injury does not reveal that he suffered as much pain and inconvenience as she did. The fact that the learned judge did not seem to have given effect to Dr Douglas prognosis of Mrs Bailey s condition, would suggest that she would be entitled to a greater sum for pain and suffering than the figure that he awarded. At the same time, it must be recognised that her condition has not been so severe that she has had to be seen by a doctor.  Mrs Bailey was 33 years old at the time of the crash. It cannot be ignored that Dr Douglas considered her injuries as serious. In that regard, Mrs Bailey said, in part, at paragraph 12 of her witness statement that: The pain just comes on sometimes. There is never a week I [sic] that I don t feel some pain. But I now know what brings it on and how to lie down in order to ease the pain and that if I sit, I have to be comfortable. Because there is
11 no cure for the pain, I have made adjustments to my life to deal with it. I know certain things I should not do, so I don t do it.  Based on those considerations, an award of $1,000, would be a more appropriate award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Analysing the award for special damages  The main aspect of Mrs Bailey s claim for special damages was her claim for recovery of the expenditure on domestic help. After her injury, she hired a domestic helper to work full-time. In his assessment of this aspect of Mrs Bailey s claim, the learned judge took the view that it was exaggerated because she had failed to mitigate her loss. He, therefore, awarded her one-half of her claim under that heading. He said, at page 8 of his judgment: The failure by her to mitigate her loss must reduce her claim [in respect of the costs of a household helper]. The Claimant had claimed extra help of $780, Counsel for the Defendant argued that she should be awarded 50% of her claim. I am minded to accept this suggestion in view of her failure to mitigate.  Miss Minto complained that the learned trial judge s halving of this aspect of Mrs Bailey s claim was based on a flawed assessment of the evidence. Learned counsel argued that the learned judge came to his conclusion on this aspect because of his view of the evidence regarding Mrs Bailey s use, or the lack thereof, of painkillers and physiotherapy.
12  Mr Gordon submitted that the learned judge had correctly assessed the claim for expenditure on household help because Mrs Bailey had failed to specify the need for that help. Learned counsel argued that the medical evidence did not specify the things that Mrs Bailey could not do. He also submitted that although Mrs Bailey did say what household tasks brought on the pain, the learned trial judge rejected her evidence on this aspect because of her lack of credibility. Mr Gordon submitted that Mrs Bailey had failed to justify her claim for the cost of a full-time helper.  Mr Gordon s submission has provided a reason for the reduction of this aspect of the claim that the learned trial judge did not, himself, specifically advance. The learned trial judge s reason, as set out in the quote above, was, as Miss Minto submitted, Mrs Bailey s failure to mitigate her loss. The flaw in that reasoning has already been discussed. The reduction of the claim on that basis cannot, therefore, be sustained.  Mrs Bailey s claim in this regard, is supported by the medical evidence. Dr Douglas, in his report mentioned above, said that she will have to be very selective with the kind of house work she does to avoid aggravating her back pain. In her testimony in respect of this aspect of the claim, Mrs Bailey said that there were certain household tasks that she could not do. At paragraph 12 of her witness statement, she said, in part: I know that if I sweep or wipe, the pain comes on in my lower back, so I don t do it [sic]. Washing is a no-no, not even using a washing machine, because I have to bend to sort the clothes. So I hired a helper after the accident.
13 In cross-examination she said that the helper washes, cleans the house, sweeps the yard and does the ironing. On her testimony, the helper does everything except cooking.  It is true that the learned trial judge was less than impressed with Mrs Bailey as a witness. He was of the opinion that [she] embellished and exaggerated the injuries to justify her claim for the extra help she continued to employ in her household and sought to recover from [Mr Shaw]. His view of her testimony cannot, however, allow him to ignore the uncontested medical evidence from Dr Douglas.  The cross-examination of Mrs Bailey did not demonstrate that she could have properly operated with a part-time helper. She said that the only household task that she could do without being affected by pain is cooking. Whether that is an exaggeration or not it does seem that Mrs Bailey did have a need for daily household tasks to be done by a helper. Her children were very young at the time of her injury, being two plus and three plus years old respectively. They would not have been able to assist with those daily chores. With the passage of time the children would be able to assist in the household and, therefore, there is merit in the learned trial judge making no award for future expenses for the household assistance.  It does seem, therefore, that the learned trial judge erred in refusing Mrs Bailey s claim for compensation for her hiring a full-time helper. Accordingly, the award for this item should not have been halved as the learned trial judge ordered.
14  It should be noted, however, that there were some difficulties with Mrs Bailey s claim as set out in her amended particulars of claim. Instead of claiming $780, for the period 1 December 2002 to 31 December 2006 at $ per week, the sum should have been $636, In addition to the figure of $780,000.00, there was a claim for $45, for the period from 1 January 2007 purportedly to 9 March 2009 at the rate of $4, per week. The period covered was certainly more than the 10 weeks that that calculation suggests. In the absence of an explanation for those totals, the total of $681,000 ($636, $45,000.00) should be granted for this item. In addition to the claim for household help, the learned trial judge awarded the sum of $26, as re-imbursement for other expenses. When that figure is added to the sum of $681,000.00, special damages would be increased from $416, to $$707, Conclusion  The learned trial judge erred in his interpretation of the medical reports and in his finding that Mrs Bailey had refused to follow the treatment regime that her doctors had recommended. He did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the orthopaedic specialist had opined that Mrs Bailey had suffered a 5% whole person disability and that, as a consequence, there were certain things, including household tasks, which she would not have been able to do. Accordingly the awards made, both for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and for special damages in respect of the hiring of a household helper, did not properly reflect that evidence. The decided cases support a finding that the award for general damages should be increased to $1,000, It is
15 also required that the award for the expenditure on the household help should be increased to $681, All other orders made by the learned judge should remain in place. Costs should be awarded to the appellant to be taxed if not agreed. HARRIS JA ORDER It is ordered as follows: a. The appeal is allowed. b. The award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is hereby set aside and a sum of $1,000, substituted therefor. c. The award of $416, for special damages is hereby set aside and a sum of $707, substituted therefor. d. All other awards by the learned trial judge should stand. e. Costs of the appeal to the appellant to be taxed if not agreed.
Insurance Bulletin The Court has its Say! May 2005 Assessment of General Damages Under the Civil Liability Act (Qld) This is the first occasion in Queensland where the quantum provisions of the CLA have
 JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
DECISION NUMBER 749 / 94 SUMMARY The worker suffered a whiplash injury in a compensable motor vehicle accident in May 1991. The worker appealed a decision of the Hearings Officer denying entitlement when
WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [personal information] CASE I.D. #[personal information] PLAINTIFF AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DEFENDANT DECISION #41 [Personal
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO: 571 OF 1998 BETWEEN: Halley Glasgow Plaintiff and Cameron Veira And Veira Agencies Ltd Defendant Appearances: Mr.. Joseph Delves
CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Employer) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Worker) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NUMBER SLUHCV 2002/0329 BETWEEN: AUDLYN FADLIEN Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant Appearances: Mr. Hilford Deterville
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CLAIM NO. SVGHCV2010/0125 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Peter Douglas Claimant and Sean Roberts Maurice O Garro Defendant Appearances:
 JMCA Civ 18 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 98/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE PANTON P THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McDONALD-BISHOP JA (Ag) BETWEEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON June 30, 2000 Session RONNIE WAYNE INMAN v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court (Humboldt)
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G103629 SHIKITA WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, EMPLOYER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 98-C-1403 WILLIS THOMAS Versus TOWN OF ARNAUDVILLE PER CURIAM* This is a workers compensation case. The workers compensation judge found plaintiff failed to establish a work-related
No. 80-100 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 KENNETH KIENAS, Claimant and Appellant, JAMES G. PETERSON, Employer, and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Insurer, Defendant and Respondent.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION DONALD BRYAN SMITHHISLER Claimant VS. LIFE CARE CENTERS AMERICA, INC. Respondent Docket No. 1,014,349 AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE
 JMCA Civ 43 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 37/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD
JMSC Civ. 56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CLAIM NO. 2010 HCV 0550 BETWEEN JULIET JONES Agent for and on behalf of Leroy Jones of Rocky Point, Lionel Town P.O. Clarendon AND ATTORNEY
SANDY C. PATTERSON, PLAINTIFF, 2005 ACO #8 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N WORKERS COMPENSATION APPELLATE COMMISSION V DOCKET #04-0167 BEACON SERVICES, INCORPORATED AND ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2009 Session DON R. DILLEHAY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for
IN THE BIRKENHEAD COUNTY COURT Case No. 3YM66264 76 Hamilton Street Birkenhead CH41 5EN Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE P. GREGORY 2 March 2015 Between: -------------- LIAQAT RAJA and Claimant (Respondent) MR
 JMSC CIV. 139 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2009 HCV 04450 BETWEEN AND MORAIN HURST (b.n.f. CARLTON HURST) WEBSTER RADWAY CLAIMANT DEFENDANT Carleen
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL BETWEEN: [PERSONAL INFORMATION] CASE ID #[PERSONAL INFORMATION] APPELLANT AND: WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RESPONDENT DECISION #194 Appellant
John Coronis v. Granger Northern Inc. (April 27, 2010) STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR John Coronis Opinion No. 16-10WC v. By: Sal Spinosa, Esq. Hearing Officer Granger Northern, Inc. ATTORNEYS: For:
How Much Is My ICBC Claim Worth? Each ICBC claim is unique. The value of any ICBC claim will depend on a number of factors including who is at fault, the type of injuries and the effect of the injuries
What is my claim worth? This is probably the most common and important question asked by a Claimant pursuing a personal injury claim. At the end of the day, it is the recovery of compensation for the injury
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Bagasbas v. Atwal, 2009 BCSC 512 Myla Bagasbas Date: 20090416 Docket: M081193 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff And Gursimran Atwal and Sarbjit Atwal
Personal Injury Medical Report on Joan Smith DOB 24.12.74 Reference by Dr. A.R.Feltbower MB BChir DRCOG AFOM General Medical Practitioner Westminster Road Medical Services Ltd 41 Westminster Road Coventry.
Employer Liability for Consequences of Teacher Stress House of Lords Decision Macrossans Lawyers, Brisbane, Queensland In Barber v. Somerset County Council the House of Lords recently delivered an important
IMPORTANT NOTICE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED." PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28(4)(C), THIS OPINION IS
 JMSC Civ. 154 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA IN THE CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. HCV 2011/ 05126 BETWEEN RYAN HENRY CLAIMANT AND KINGSTON CONTAINER TERMINAL DEFENDANT SERVICES LIMITED
THIRTY FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. BERNARD STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER 89-352 DIVISION B TERRENCE FEDELE VERSUS CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. FILED DEPUTY CLERK REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This
2015 Ml -8 a:-; S: 33 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BEHZAD MOHAMMAD, an individual, Plaintiff, MOGHADAM M. MOVAHEDI, an individual, Appellant, DIVISION ONE No. 71008-7-1 UNPUBLISHED
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0744n.06 No. 15-1612 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RICHARD DIXON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL SARAVIA V. HORMEL FOODS NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
 UKPC 25 Privy Council Appeal No 0023 of 2013 JUDGMENT TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord
[Cite as Davis v. Firelands Reg. Med. Ctr., 2010-Ohio-4051.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY David E. Davis, et al. Court of Appeals No. E-10-013 Appellants Trial Court
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MICHAEL L. McDONALD Claimant VS. FIBERGLASS SYSTEMS, LP Respondent Docket No. 1,003,977 AND PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. Insurance
SUMMARY DECISION NO. 248/97 Continuing entitlement. The worker slipped and fell backwards in October 1991. The worker appealed a decision of the Hearings Officer denying entitlement for organic neck and
Medical Report Prepared for The Court on Mr Sample Report Claimant's Address Claimant's Date of Birth Instructing Party Instructing Party Address Instructing Party Ref Solicitors Ref Corex Ref 1 The Lane
What Is My Injury Claim Worth? How insurance companies evaluate your injury accident case Based on California law. Written by a California licensed injury accident lawyer for Californians. Provided for
[Cite as State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591, 2014-Ohio- 2871.] THE STATE EX REL. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL.,
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation
PERSONAL INJURIES There are three main aspects to dealing with the results of personal injury: medical treatment, employment, and recovery of proper compensation. MEDICAL TREA TMEN T Coordinatinq Doctor
United States Department of Labor V.L., Appellant and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. PROBATION DEPARTMENT, New York City, NY, Employer Appearances: Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant Office of Solicitor,
THE PHYSIO CENTRE Motor Vehicle Accident Instructions for Completing the Forms in this package There are 2 forms enclosed in this package which are required for patients under MVA coverage. 1. Agree To
CASE ANALYSIS Income Support Capital to be treated as income - Structured settlement of damages for personal injury - Whether periodical payments that arise from the annuity are to be treated as income
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT KNOXVILLE December 14, 2000 Session PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS COMPANY v. KATHY A. JENNINGS Direct Appeal from the Circuit
PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 31 JULY 2013 Title Number I INTRODUCTION Definitions Para 1.1 Preamble Para 2.1 Aims Para 3.1 Scope Para 4.1 II GENERAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date 20080222 Docket M062030 Registry Vancouver Between Sakina Jah Plaintiff And Sik L Cheung Defendant Before The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett Oral Reasons
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 232 OF 2008 BETWEEN: HERMUS CYRUS v CHRISTOPHER WYLLIE Claimant Defendant Appearances:
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT APPELLATE DIVISION NELLIE FRANCIS VS. W.C.C. 04-03284 PROVIDENCE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT PROVIDENCE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
IN THE COURT OF MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, NAGAON (ASSAM) M.A.C. Case No.406/06 Md. Fazlul Karim: Claimant. -Vs- (1) National Ins. Co. Ltd., and (2) Sri Dipak Kr. Bora. : Opp. Parties. Present:
BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION MARION A. DAVIS ) Claimant ) VS. ) ) Docket No. 216,570 CONSPEC MARKETING & MANUFACTURING CO. ) Respondent ) AND ) ) UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 25, 2003 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
April, 2011 VOL. 5, ISSUE 2 How To Use The New Expert Witness Rule To Negotiate A Good Deal By Cary N. Schneider Cary N. Schneider is a partner at Beard Winter LLP who specializes in accident benefit and
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JOE A. VANN, JR., Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
MEDICAL REPORT SOLICITOR'S REF INSTRUCTIONS FROM CLIENT'S NAME ADDRESS ACC/675/413 Smith and Smith Solicitors Janet Jones 18 Cross Drive, Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle DOB 09 August 1955 DATE OF ACCIDENT 01 September
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between Reportable CASE NO 611/2004 ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Appellant and G S O GUEDES Respondent Coram: Zulman, Mthiyane and Lewis JJA Heard: 20 February
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1043 September Term, 2006 ATRELLE T. THOMAS v. GIANT FOOD, LLC, ET AL. Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, McAuliffe, John F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned),
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA BETWEEN: ANUHCV2006/0026 ANITA TOBITT AND GRAND ROYAL ANTIGUAN BEACH RESORT LIMITED Claimant AND STANFORD FREDERICK
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IA Construction Corporation and : Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., : Petitioners : : v. : No. 2151 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 10, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA HCVAP 2012/026 IN THE MATTER of an Interlocutory Appeal and IN THE MATTER of Part 62.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules BETWEEN: CHRISTIAN
Persisting Difficulties with Serious Injury Applications By Andrew Ingram and Michael Schaefer Plaintiffs often have to overcome serious obstacles along the way when making a serious injury application
Whiplash and Whiplash- Associated Disorders North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is Whiplash? The term whiplash might be confusing because it describes both a mechanism of injury and
VICKIE RUTH HELMS 1 DOCKET NO. 152,668 BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD FOR THE KANSAS DIVISION OF WORKERS COMPENSATION VICKIE RUTH HELMS Claimant VS. Docket No. 152,668 TOLLIE FREIGHTWAYS, INC. Respondent INSURANCE
APPEAL NO. 100822 FILED AUGUST 23, 2010 This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on June
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd October 2014 Issue: 034 Causation/pre-existing condition The case of Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust and another (2014) EWHC 3016 (QB) deals
Reform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims September 2008 Neil Fisher and Kevin Johnson John Pickering and Partners LLP Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 19 Castle Street Liverpool L2 4SX Tel: 0151
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL KAUFFMAN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4264 v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. and WILLIAM F. JINES, Defendants. MEMORANDUM
1 COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL KAMRUP :: GUWAHATI Present :- B J Mahanta Member, MACT Kamrup, Guwahati MAC Case No. 881 of 2011 Md Surjat Ali Claimant Versus 1 Sri Sameswar Barman (Driver of
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COURT AT SUVA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CASE NUMBER: ERCA NO. 09 OF 2012 BETWEEN: AUTOMART LIMITED APPELLANT AND: WAQA ROKOTUINASAU RESPONDENT Appearances: Ms. Drova for the Appellant.
Province of Saskatchewan Citation: S.R. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2009 SKAIA 001 Date: 20090119 File: 128 of 2006 BETWEEN S.R., Appellant and Saskatchewan Government Insurance, Respondent Appearances:
SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/014 BETWEEN: EASTERN CARIBBEAN INSURANCE LTD. Appellant and EDMUND BICAR Before: The Hon. Mde. Janice George-Creque The Hon. Mr. Davidson K. Baptiste The Hon.
Commonwealth of Kentucky Workers Compensation Board OPINION ENTERED: March 25, 2014 CLAIM NO. 201166969 REBECCA MAHAN PETITIONER VS. APPEAL FROM HON. R. SCOTT BORDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PROFESSIONAL