Whiplash is probably the most common type of injury suffered by people in car accidents. Whiplash is a type of soft-tissue injury that involves damage to a person’s muscles, ligaments and tendons. People involved in car accidents commonly sustain soft-tissue injuries to the muscles, ligaments and tendons surrounding the spine, namely the neck, shoulders and back. These type of injuries can be both painful and limiting. While they can improve and resolve with treatment, they can also be long-lasting and permanent.

Unlike broken bones, soft-tissue injuries do not show up on scans or medical imaging such as x-rays, ultrasounds or MRIs. For that reason, some people call them “subjective” injuries. That is because the subjective complaints of the person suffering from them is the only evidence of their existence. Because of that, soft-tissue injuries can be difficult to prove. Knowing this, insurance companies like ICBC are often unwilling to accept the presence or severity of soft-tissue injuries, which can be distressing given the impact these types of injuries can have on a person’s daily life at home and at work.

Fortunately, our team of ICBC injury lawyers have years of experience dealing with cases involving soft-tissue injuries. From negotiating fair settlements to succeeding at trial, our lawyers have a proven track record of getting people with soft-tissue injuries full compensation for all of their losses. Along the way, we can help you access the treatment you need to recover and any wage loss benefits you’re entitled to. We can also facilitate the assessments needed to determine the full impact of these soft-tissue injuries on your life both now and in the future. These assessments can tell us many things like your prognosis for further recovery, the effect of your injuries on your ability to work, other career options if your injuries prevent you from doing your current job, and what treatments you’ll likely require down the road.

If you sustained whiplash in a car accident, contact us today for a free consultation – before speaking with ICBC!

Related Posts

L.T. v. D.T. Estate (Re), 2019 BCSC 2130

In Canada, section 2 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act sets out that “No person shall remove human reproductive material from a donor’s body after the donor’s death for the purpose of creating an embryo unless the donor has given written consent”.  In considering cases under section 2, the Supreme Court of Canada has made […]

Congratulations Alexa Zimmer

Johnston Franklin Bishop is pleased to announce that Alexa Zimmer has been called to the bar, finishing her articles, and is now a lawyer. She will continue to practice law in the practice areas of real estate, wills and estates, and litigation with Johnston Franklin Bishop.

Grewal v. Litt, 2019 BCSC 1154

The recent decision of Grewal v. Litt, 2019 BCSC 1154 looks at the factors the Court will consider when deciding to vary a will that treats independent adult children unequally. The potential influence of cultural traditions and customs on the parents’ decision-making was a central issue in this matter.In this case, Nahar and Nihal Litt […]

Enns v. Gordon Estate, 2018 BCSC 705

In the 2018 decision of Enns v. Gordon Estate, 2018 BCSC 705, the Court considered estrangement between adult parents and children, and when estrangement can be sufficient to establish a circumstance that negates a parent’s moral obligation to provide for their child in their will.This case involves a claim by Norma Enns and Elizabeth Gordon […]

Dunsdon v. Dunsdon, 2012 BCSC 1274

The 2012 decision of Dunsdon v. Dunsdon, 2012 BCSC 1274 is frequently cited in cases involving claims by adult children to vary a parent’s will.Under section 60 of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act, the Court may vary a will in favour of a spouse or child in such amount as the Court thinks is […]

Gibbons v. Livingston, 2018 BCSC 1452 & 2018 BCCA 443

In the 2018 decisions of Gibbons v. Livingston, 2018 BCSC 1452 and 2018 BCCA 443 our courts addressed competing family law and wills variation claims.Following the death of her common-law spouse, Graeme Livingston, Vicki Gibbons sued to vary his will, which left his entire estate to his son and left nothing to Ms. Gibbons. The […]

Boer v. Mikaloff, 2017 BCSC 21

The 2017 decision of Boer v. Mikaloff, 2017 BCSC 21 addresses the rights of a child who has been adopted, but is named as beneficiary in their biological parent’s will.Section 3 of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act clearly states that a child who has been adopted is not entitled to a share of their […]

Bizicki Estate, 2019 BCSC 2142

Prior to the introduction of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act (WESA) in 2014, a document could only be accepted as a will if it met certain formal requirements: it must be in writing and signed by the will-maker in the presence of two witnesses who also must sign the document in the presence of […]

Mayer v. Mayer Estate, 2018 BCSC 2225

The recent decision of Mayer v. Mayer 2018 BCSC 2225 highlights the importance of clarity in estate planning and the limitations of section 60 of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act, which permits spouses and children to seek an order varying a will.This decision involves a claim by the daughter of one Otto Mayer seeking, […]