Client Update: Court Confirms: Credibility is a Key Factor In Personal Injury Awards (Ryan V. Curlew, 2018 NL SC)
The decision of Justice Handrigan in Ryan v. Curlew is the first motor vehicle accident personal injury decision to come out of the Newfoundland and Labrador courts in quite some time. The case is a win for the insurance industry in many respects.
The accident occurred on Pitts Memorial Drive in 2010. At that time, Ryan was a 27 year old Ship’s Clerk with no pre-existing injuries. Her claim for over $3 million was for total disability due to chronic headaches, persistent neck, back and shoulder pain with depression, anxiety and PTSD. The Defendant was found liable for the accident and Handrigan J. awarded $803,420 in damages, broken down as follows:
The Court awarded $100,000 in general damages, less than was expected for a total disability. This was largely due to issues with Ms. Ryan’s credibility, with the Court finding her claim of total disability to be “disingenuous and unconvincing.” Handrigan J. emphasized the importance of a Plaintiff’s credibility in soft tissue injury cases where much of the evidence must come from the Plaintiff. The medical evidence that merely regurgitated Ms. Ryan’s subjective complaints appears to have been given less weight than the objective evidence which, on the whole, failed to support Ms. Ryan’s claim of injury below the neck-shoulder girdle.
The Court allowed Ms. Ryan’s family doctor to be called as an expert, but, after hearing her testimony, doubted her impartiality.
In regards to the calculation of lost earnings, the Court found the actuarial evidence “decidedly unhelpful.” An amount of $252,732 was awarded for seven years of past lost earnings, reflecting an annual salary of $60,000 – $65,000 (gross). Perhaps the most significant aspect of this decision is the Court’s interpretation of s.26 of the Automobile Insurance Act which was interpreted to support the deduction of CPP disability benefits, Section B indemnity and the Manulife past and future disability benefits.
The Court did not believe that Ms. Ryan would never work again. $575,000 was calculated for loss of future earning capacity but this amount was deducted to reflect a $200,000 settlement Ms. Ryan received from Manulife, for a total award of $375,000.
$2,000 per year was awarded for past housekeeping and $13,957 for past cost of care. The awards for future housekeeping at $35,000 and $100,000 for future cost of care were on the high side, considering the past cost of care and Ms. Ryan’s credibility issues.
The entire award was reduced by 10 per cent due to Ms. Ryan’s failure to mitigate. Handrigan J. summarized the law of mitigation as follows:
- There is an obligation to mitigate;
- You cannot claim you failed to mitigate because you could not afford to mitigate;
- You are only required to act reasonably when mitigating;
- Whether one acts reasonable is a question of fact; and,
- The Defendant has the onus of proving a failure to mitigate.
Ms. Ryan’s failure to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist despite recommendations, her failure to take prescribed medications, her failure to continue with the recommended exercises and her decision to discontinue physio and aqua therapy were satisfactory to support a failure to mitigate.
This decision is significant in that it definitively condones the deduction of CPP, section B and private disability benefits from lost earnings, past and future. It also reminds us when it is appropriate to reduce an award for a failure to mitigate. Lastly, it sends a strong message to plaintiffs not to exaggerate their claims.
The above summary was prepared on April 8, 2018
Health Group, Christopher Goodridge, Matthew Jacobs The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in a decision released on May 15, 2019 that doctors must provide an ‘effective referral’ where they are unwilling to provide care on…Read More
Level Chan and Dante Manna The Province of Nova Scotia is soliciting stakeholder input on significant regulatory changes to the Pension Benefits Act (“PBA”) and Pension Benefits Regulations (“PBR”). The solicitation is accompanied by a…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry, Divya Subramanian and Matthew Jacobs The main asset of innovation is Intellectual Property. Applicants looking to participate in the Innovation Superclusters Initiative must be vigilant of their Intellectual Property. This article…Read More
Kevin Landry Health Canada has announced changes to the cannabis licensing regime. These changes come ahead of the release of the cannabis edibles, extracts, and topicals amendments to the Cannabis Regulations expected to be released…Read More
Grant Machum Last week’s Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s decision in Halifax Herald Limited v. Clarke, 2019 NSCA 31, is good news for employers. The Court overturned the trial judge’s determinations that an employee had…Read More
Rick Dunlop On April 24, 2019, the Nova Scotia Government created the Trade Union Act General Regulations so that the Labour Board will no longer consider a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as the date of…Read More
Rodney Zdebiak and Anthony Granville On Monday, April 15, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature passed a number of changes to the Automobile Insurance Act (“Act”) stating that the intent is to help stabilize insurance rates,…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry and Matthew Jacobs The Canadian government has placed itself in the “global innovation race”. In response to the demands for innovation, the Canadian government has established the Innovation Superclusters Initiative which…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry and Matthew Jacobs Canada’s Ocean Supercluster is a co-investment initiative between Canada’s federal government and the private sector that is part of the Innovation Superclusters Initiative. As we wrote about in…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry and Matthew Jacobs As we discuss in our article, No compass needed – Ocean Supercluster activities explained, there are many ways to participate in the Ocean Supercluster and the Innovation Superclusters…Read More