2 Important Questions
There are two questions that almost every single client asks me during our first meeting. They are questions that I think every person who has suffered a personal injury should ask their lawyer before they decide to hire them.
The two questions are:
1. How long will this take?
2. How much will I get?
The honest answer to both of these questions (at least during the initial interview) is: “I don’t know”.
Landmark Ruling Regarding Loss of Housekeeping Capacity
In the 1991 decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Fobel v. Dean, the court confirmed that loss of housekeeping capacity has value and an injured plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the loss of that capacity.
Nova Scotia Confirms Claims for Loss of Housekeeping
In 1998, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed that the loss of housekeeping capacity is a separate and distinct head of pecuniary damages and must be compensated for accordingly. In Carter v. Anderson, Justice Roscoe stated:
Last week the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Morrow v. Zhang.
Alberta introduced legislation placing a “cap” of $4000.00 on the compensation that persons who suffered a “minor injury” were entitled to receive. The plaintiff’s Morrow and Pedersen appealed the cap claiming that it infringed their rights under Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The trial judge ruled that, were it not for the “minor injury” cap, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to non-pecuniary damages in excess of the $4,000.00 cap. The trial judge also found that the distinction in the legislation between people that had suffered a minor injury and other injured victims resulted in substantive inequality resulting in an unequal distribution on financial benefits.
One of the challenges that I face as a Nova Scotia personal injury lawyer is explaining to people who have been seriously injured how much compensation they are entitled to receive.
Pain and Suffering
One of the heads of damages that the court will consider when awarding compensation is what lawyers refer to as “non-pecuniary damages”. Most people refer to this type of damages as “pain and suffering”.
Justice Walter Goodfellow has released the second part of his decision in Hartling v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General).
“Minor Injury” Cap Isn’t Unconstitutional
As I explained in a previous post last month: “Minor Injury” Compensation Cap Constitutional, Justice Goodfellow determined that Nova Scotia’s legislation that places a cap of $2,500.00 on the compensation that innocent accident victims can receive for their pain and suffering does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Nova Scotia Limits Compensation For Injured Car Accident Victims
As I have explained in previous posts, Nova Scotia has legislation that places caps on the amount of compensation that persons injured in car accidents are entitled to receive for their injuries.
“Minor Injury” Cap Constitutional
For years insurance companies and their lawyers have been telling chronic pain victims: “…it’s all in your head!”
Defendants Claim Chronic Pain Isn’t Real
Insurance companies hire psychiatrists to produce reports claiming that the chronic pain victim’s pain is the result of a psychiatric illness, accuse the victim of malingering or come up with a bogus diagnosis like compensation neurosis.
Insurance companies use “dirty tricks” and “unethical behavior” to deny legitimate claims and boost their profits, according to a new report released by the American Association for Justice.
The report explains how insurers have:
…endeavored to deny claims, delay payments, confuse consumers with incomprehensible insurance-speak, and retroactively refuse anyone who may cost them money.
Nova Scotia Passes Law to Protect Insurance Company Profits
In 2003 Nova Scotia passed the Automobile Insurance Reform Act (AIRA) to protect the profits of the insurance industry at the expense of innocent accident victims.
“Minor Injury” Cap on Compensation
