We are very pleased to welcome a new associate, Derek Ballard, to the firm! To learn more about Derek, click here.
|
The Verdict on the Threshold Brak v. Walsh On April 1, 2008, in Brak v. Walsh, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the “threshold” test that must be met before a car accident victim can make a claim for pain and suffering. A car accident victim meets the threshold if one of the following tests is met: (1) the plaintiff sustained a permanent impairment of a physical, mental or psychological function that is important and serious; or (2) the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious disfigurement. The Court of Appeal indicated that an injury is “permanent” if it lasts “indefinitely into the future.” Under this definition of permanence, a plaintiff who is able to return to work—either paid or domestic—or perform other duties requiring physical exertion may still suffer from what the Court terms a “serious” injury. The only concern under the threshold test is whether the plaintiff continues to experience pain, and whether the pain affects his/her enjoyment of life, socialization and personal relationships. More recently, in Guerrero v. Fukuda, Justice Little, in deciding that the plaintiff’s injuries met the threshold, stated: “pain, and its degree of severity, are subjective and can exist without any objective finding”. Consequently, even if there are no objective findings, a car accident victim who continues to experience pain which affects their enjoyment of life can still meet the threshold in a claim for pain and suffering. This is true regardless of whether the person has returned to work or has been able to resume household responsibilities.
HSH Lawyers: |
"The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day" ~ Abraham Lincoln
|
