Auto insurer ordered to pay permanent impairment compensation to driver
British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has ordered the province’s public auto insurer to pay an injured driver’s permanent impairment compensation (PIC) and income replacement benefits (IRB).
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) had argued driver Paula Krystin Chiang did not prove she was entitled to PIC or IRB. Tribunal member Peter Mennie found she was entitled to those benefits but agreed with ICBC that she was not entitled to additional healthcare and rehabilitation benefits.
Chiang was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May, 6, 2021. She was driving through an intersection when she collided with a tractor turning left. “Photos taken after the accident show that the damage to Mrs. Chiang’s truck was significant,” Mennie writes in the Mar. 21 decision, Chiang v. ICBC.
Chiang initially reported severe back pain and muscle aches. Her general practitioner (GP) diagnosed her with a diffuse musculoskeletal injury and generalized muscle sprains. She was later determined to have suffered a wedge fracture at her T11 vertebra, “which was likely caused by the motor vehicle accident,” the decision reads.
More than three years later, a letter from Chiang’s GP said she had “constant, severe back pain that has led to impairments in her daily life and work.
“A reassessment report from the GP on Nov. 1, 2024 said Mrs. Chiang is working part-time because of her pain and diagnosed her with chronic pain from her T11 compression fracture,” Mennie writes in the report. “The GP stated this was a permanent injury with no possibility of recovery.”
Defining permanent injuries
In determining whether Chiang was entitled to PIC, Mennie relied on section 10(1) of the Permanent Impairment Regulation, which says “an impairment is ‘permanent’ when, following a period of time sufficient for optimal tissue repair, the impairment has become static, has stabilized, or is unlikely to change significantly with further therapy.”
ICBC said her injuries were not permanent, relying on initial doctor reports stating her condition was likely to improve with treatment. But Mennie ruled those reports were written on the assumption that Chiang’s injuries were soft tissue issues and sprains.
“More recent medical evidence explains the extent of Mrs. Chiang’s back injury,” Mennie writes. “Mrs. Chiang suffered a T11 vertebral fracture and her GP’s most recent letter says that her injuries are not expected to improve.
“So, I find that Mrs. Chiang’s T11 vertebral fracture is permanent.” Mennie awarded Chiang $3,349.30 for the non-catastrophic permanent injury.
When it comes to income replacement benefits, ICBC agreed Chiang was unable to work her job as a laboratory assistant after her accident because of her injuries. ICBC paid her IRB from June 2, 2021 to Oct. 28, 2021.
She then reduced her hours in April 2023. Chiang says it was due to pain; ICBC argues it was for reasons unrelated to her injuries. However, Mennie says he has no medical records after Nov. 15, 2021.
“ICBC has or could easily have obtained the GP’s records after Nov. 15, 2021,” Mennie writes. “I draw an adverse inference against ICBC for failing to produce these records, meaning I assume that ICBC did not provide these records because it would not help its case.”
Mennie said he found Chiang’s reduced hours in 2023 onwards were due to a relapse in accident-related injuries. He ordered ICBC to calculate Chiang’s IRB entitlement from May 1, 2023 and reimburse her for any underpayment.
Lastly, Mennie dismissed Chiang’s claim for additional healthcare and rehab benefits, saying ICBC funded all of her treatments to date and she provided no evidence to show she incurred expenses not covered by the insurer.
Feature image by iStock.com/Andrzej Rostek
