We have been asked many times why our clients are so loyal to us and why they refer their family and friends to Cowley & Company.  We have compiled the top five reasons:

No. 5 – We are big.  With seven lawyers and twenty-six persons in total staff, we are the second biggest car accident law firm in the province.  Naturally, we have more resources to service our clients.

No. 4 – Our settlements, on average, exceed the settlements negotiated by our competitors.  We work very hard to secure the biggest and fairest settlements for our clients.

No. 3 – We have an extensive network of medical specialists who can see our clients on short notice at no cost to the client.  In addition, we fund diagnostic testing ordered by the specialists, such as MRI, so that these tests can be done in a timely manner.

No. 2 – We have a heart.  If a client needs treatment recommended by his or her doctor and ICBC refuses to fund the treatment and the client cannot afford it, we somehow find a way to help out.

No. 1 – Are you ready?  (Drum roll …)  We have the best looking support staff of any car accident law firm in the province.  No kidding.  Check it out.

Not so fast, my friend.  Let's go back to first principles.  In order to have a valid claim, you need to have two elements:

1. You have to be injured – not just a boo boo kind of injury, but a real injury where it affects your work and/or leisure activities.
2. The incident that caused the injury must be the fault of somebody other than yourself.

Let's go back to our lettuce in the produce aisle story.  In slip and fall incidents, judges are very leery of claims.  The store is not automatically liable if lettuce ends up on the floor.  The store is only responsible when one or both of the following occurs:

1. The store had not maintained a reasonable schedule of inspections.  Most stores have a posted schedule which documents that there is a walk about every so and so hours to look for things like lettuce on the floor.
2. The lettuce incident occurs between inspections, somebody in the store is alerted to the hazard and fails to respond or responds inappropriately.

In other words, you are compensated only when you can prove that:

1. The inspection schedule of the store was unreasonable or not carried out, OR
2. The store was alerted to the hazard and did not respond in a reasonable and timely manner.

If you, a family member, a friend or co worker is injured in this manner, call us for a free consultation.

Two young men came to my office one day after they had been fired for from their jobs at a large chain department store for “theft”.  One fellow’s job title was “night clerk”.  His friend’s job title was “night supervisor”.  At that time, the night shift consisted of the two young men only.

The story went as follows:

1. It was the week before Halloween, and there were thousands of bags of candy for sale on the main floor.
2. Sneaky young children were able to temporarily get away from their parents to poke a hole in a candy bag, steal a candy, then take off.
3. Consistent with the store’s policy, if a bag of candies was torn, the entire bag of candies would have to be discarded and thrown into a large metal drum in the basement of the store.  Employees were told not to eat the candies as they were slated for disposal.
4. Despite the store’s policy, the more senior supervisors on all shifts would routinely disappear on their breaks to the basement, where they would eat the candy and return to work on a sugar high.  The senior supervisors encouraged the younger members of staff to do the same.

This activity had been going on a number of weeks when the store decided to put an end to it.  They chose to set up two sacrificial lambs, who we’ll call Mark and Jeff. T he store commissioned security guards to hide behind the candy drum and wait for Mark and Jeff to appear on their break for their candy feast.  As soon as my sweet toothed clients arrived at the candy drum, they were “arrested” and handcuffed.  They were then marched to a room where they were interrogated, threatened, and ultimately, dismissed from their employment .  The store then used the story of the dismissal to frighten its other employees from continuing with similar behaviour.

This went to trial before a senior judge of the Provincial Court.  It turns out that the supervisor of these two young men ordered the set up.  As the trial wore on and he was unable to explain his actions, he finally exploded and yelled, “I’m not going to answer any more of your stupid questions!”  He stomped out of the witness box towards where I was standing.  Two burly security guards appeared at my left and right shoulder.  The judge chastised the supervisor, after which he reclaimed his position in the witness box for the rest of my questions.  When the security guard took the stand, I brought him through all the procedures that he instituted the day of the arrest and compared them with the protocol as outlined in the employee manual.  Before I had even finished the last of my questions, the judge dismissed him out of the witness box saying, “I’ve heard enough”.

Needless to say, the judge’s verdict was in favour of my clients and was the largest verdict possible in Provincial Court at the time.

The mandate of an ICBC adjuster with an unrepresented client is to convince the client that he or she is not injured very much, that he or she will get better and that it is in his or her best interest to settle the claim quickly.  More commonly, the adjuster will attempt to convince the individual that hiring a lawyer will only unduly complicate the process and that in any event, lawyers will take half or more of the money.  After all, why would he or she need a lawyer when the ICBC representative is there to help them through a claim, right?  The truth is:

1. Adjusters get bonuses when they settle claims quickly and cheaply.
2. Particularly if you are in a no fault accident, the adjuster represents the person who caused the accident, not you.
3. Adjusters take courses in how to manipulate unrepresented people twisting the truth of what they tell them.
4. Adjusters discourage injured people from going to lawyers because they know that once the individual hires a lawyer, the jig is up.

Don't let ICBC adjusters take advantage of your patients.  They deserve a voice.  They deserve a level playing field.  Without a lawyer, the patients are sitting ducks for the ICBC adjusters' tricks.

This debate has been raging for some time with "armed camps" on either side of the debate.  Insurance companies responsible for compensating people with chronic pain (ICBC, WorkSafe BC, disability providers) espouse the theory that so-called passive modalities are indicated only in the acute stage of recovery from soft tissue injuries.  They would have us believe that chiropractic, physiotherapy, and massage therapy, to name the three most utilized forms of treatment, are useless once the patient enters into the chronic pain stage of recovery.  By World Health Organization (WHO) standards, chronic pain is any significant pain experienced six months or more after the triggering event.

Most clinicians have empirical evidence that stands for the proposition that patients do derive benefits from these forms of treatment in the chronic pain stage and that any theory that ignores this reality needlessly condemns the chronic pain patient to a lifetime of relentless pain.

As with most things in life, according to the most recent research published in the leading musculoskeletal journals, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Let's take a typical car accident victim with typical accident related soft tissue injuries.  In the first month or so, there is considerable swelling, spasm and reduced motion.  Analgesic and antispasmodic medication as well as gentle massage therapy and cryotherapy appears to be the best course of treatment in this early stage.  After the first month or so, chiropractic and physiotherapy appear to be the best choices for day to day management.  Considerable benefit is derived from using these forms of treatment, either exclusively or in combination, in the early months of recovery.  After six months, most patients have essentially returned to their pre-accident state.  They may have some mild occasional residual pain and occasional reduced range of motion.  Their work and leisure activities may be minimally affected.

However, for reasons that we don't fully understand, some of these patients do not return anywhere close to their pre-accident state at the six month post-MVA point in time.  They still have daily pain of at least a moderate nature that interferes with the performance of their work, leisure activities and household chores.  These are the chronic pain patients.  Typically, these patients go on to experience pain on an ongoing basis for the foreseeable future with periods of waxing and waning, i.e., there will be periods of acute flare-ups of indeterminable length.  The current medical literature would support the following treatment regiment for chronic pain patients:

1. An active rehabilitation programme supervised by a kinesiologist, chiropractor, physiotherapist, massage therapist or qualified personal trainer followed by a gym based or home based self directed and ongoing stretching and strengthening programme.
2. Medication or a passive modality or modalities of the patient's choice on an "as needed" basis during the acute flare ups to relieve pain and to reduce dependency on medication.

So, it appears that both sides of the debate are "correct".  The current medical literature would stand for the proposition that passive modalities for chronic pain patients are likely more palliative in nature than curative.  That is not to say that they are not indicated and any opinion to that effect flies in the face of current thinking.  Many patients prefer to avail themselves of chiropractic, physiotherapy and/or massage therapy during acute flare ups of their condition as opposed to relying on habit forming narcotics with their potentially harmful side effects.

Intersection accidents involving yellow or red lights and left hand turners cause the most problems when it comes to assessing liability/fault in car accidents.  Coupled with the fact that about half of the accidents in BC occur at intersections, it is a real issue that lawyers, adjustors, judges and juries grapple with on a daily basis in our legal system.

When the driver of Car A is traveling through an intersection and the driver of Car B, traveling in the opposite direction, is waiting to make a left hand turn at the same intersection, the following general rules apply:

1. When the light is green for both cars, Car A has the right of way and the driver of Car B must yield to Car A.  The driver of Car B must wait until it is safe to make his or her turn.
2. If the light turns yellow as Car A is approaching the intersection, the driver of Car A is obligated to take all reasonable steps to stop the vehicle at or near the stop line.  When Car A is stopped, the driver of Car B can complete his or her left turn, provided it is safe to do so.  On a "fresh" yellow light, the driver of Car A still has the right of way over the driver of Car B.
3. At some point, the yellow light becomes "stale" as the seconds tick off.  On a stale yellow light, the driver of Car B has the right of way as he or she must clear the intersection.  At this point, the driver of Car A must yield to the driver of Car B.

In short, as far as fault goes:

1. As the driver of Car A approaches the stop line, and the light turns yellow, he or she must try to stop.  If it is unsafe to do so, he or she must go through the yellow light cautiously.  While this is happening, the driver of Car B must yield to the driver of Car A and wait patiently for his or her opportunity to turn.  If an accident occurs during this scenario, it is usually considered to be the fault of the driver of Car B.
2. However, if the light turns yellow at a point where the driver of Car A could have stopped but chose not to do so and the driver of Car A speeds through a stale yellow light and an accident ensues, it is most likely the fault of the driver of Car A.

What makes the whole process controversial is that when an accident occurs, the drivers of the cars involved in the accident usually have different stories.  The Car A drivers all say that the yellow light was fresh.  The Car B drivers all insist that the yellow light was stale.  Independent witnesses, if available, can cast some light on the issue.  In the absence of witnesses, the individual credibility of the drivers becomes significant.  In many cases, the fault is simply assessed on each driver equally.

If you have been in an intersection accident at a yellow light, it is imperative that you obtain legal advice as the decision on the issue of fault directly impacts financial compensation.

The question may be better phrased as:  "When do you NOT need to consult with a lawyer?"  I would say that you may not need to see a lawyer if:

1. You are very sophisticated in dealing with ICBC, AND
2. The accident is very clearly your own fault, AND
3. ICBC is not trying to avoid covering you, i.e. that ICBC is not alleging an insurance breach.

In all other situations, you would be doing yourself a favour by consulting with a lawyer.  At Cowley & Company, we do not charge for consultations.  Even if you have a bit of a drive to get to our office, the time is well worth it, considering the value of the free advice that you will receive.  The ICBC system is very complicated and gets more complex every year.  Even if you choose not to hire a lawyer and do the claim yourself, you want to be aware of the ICBC policies and procedures currently in place at the time of your claim.

I began my legal career as a Crown prosecutor, working out of the provincial Crown offices in Vancouver.  As a green rookie, I was assigned the high profile cases (yeah, sure) like theft under $5,000, solicitation and other petty crimes not deemed important enough for the big shots to handle.  One day I found myself at trial facing the notorious steak thief of Vancouver.  This fellow was a veteran of the system who had a fondness for well grilled beef steaks.  He was a wheelchair-bound war veteran who would wheel himself around a supermarket and help himself to the best steaks at the meat counter which he would conceal (poorly) under a blanket that he held in his lap.

Every time he appeared before a judge on a theft charge, he had a different excuse.  No prosecutor could get a conviction, and he was getting to be a bit of a legend at the courthouse.  Sure enough, when I got him on the stand, he pulled another trick.  He opened a large paper bag and started pulling out various small bottles of pills, one by one, placing them strategically all over the court reporter's desk.  He explained that he was on at least 12 different medications and that they made him very confused.  He further explained that, at the time of the alleged theft, he must have been so confused that he didn't know what he was doing.  He had the Judge nodding with him.  He smiled at me.  He sensed another victory in his grasp.  I asked him about each medication — why it was prescribed, the dosage and how often he was to take it.  He was very accommodating.  He was very proud of the fact that he knew precisely what each drug did, how much he was supposed to take and when.  He gave this evidence in a clear, concise, confident manner.  I thanked him for being so helpful.

In my closing arguments, I asked the Judge to consider the fact that the Defendant was able to accurately and precisely recount to the Court all the details of his prescribed medication.  He did not appear confused.  In fact, he was far less confused than I was at any given moment in time.

And yes, the Judge bought my argument.  The notorious steak thief of Vancouver went down that day.  His first conviction.  One of the first notches on my belt.

The scenario:  Your mom is driving in her 1957 Caddy with you as a passenger.  She is barreling along at 80 km/h whistling a tune from The Sound of Music, the window open, her curly locks blowing in the wind.  Suddenly, the Mack truck ahead of her stops for traffic.  Uh, oh — can't stop in time.  You plough into the Mack, dismantle the Caddy and just about lose the lower part of your jaw on impact.  You hurt — a lot.  You miss a few weeks of work.  You want compensation.  Heck, you need compensation.

You arrive at the ICBC office and the adjustor peers into your bloodshot eyes and says:  "You do realize that, in order to get compensation, you need to sue your mom.  Surely, you can't be thinking of suing the woman who gave you life?"

Well, relax.  First of all, you can get compensation without suing anybody.  You have two years less a day to start an action.  Secondly, if a lawsuit is absolutely necessary then yes, good old Mumsie is the named Defendant, but it is ICBC that pays you the compensation.  Your suit has no effect whatsoever on your mother's insurance rates — they were affected the day that she was held at fault in the accident.  The size of your ICBC cheque has no effect on whether her rates increase or by how much.

Don't let an ICBC adjustor intimidate you by pulling this old trick out of their sleeve.

You have been in an  accident that wasn't your fault.  The adjustor tells you that it is not an ICBC case and gives you  the advice to fill out WCB forms.  How do you know whether it is WCB or ICBC?

The following are the general rules:

1. If neither party was working at the time of the accident, it is automatically an ICBC case.
2. If both parties were working at the time of the accident, it is automatically a WCB case.
3. If you were not working at the time of the accident and the at fault party was working, it is automatically an ICBC case.
4. If you were working at the time of the accident and the at fault party was not working, you have a choice.  If you choose WCB, you can obtain coverage for wage loss and treatment cost but no compensation for pain and suffering and very limited coverage for future losses.  If you choose ICBC, you will not have immediate coverage for wage loss or treatment costs but you will retain the right to full compensation for all losses at the end of the claim, including pain and suffering, wage loss, treatment costs and future losses.  The vast majority of people in this situation choose to go through ICBC.

Often, the ICBC adjustors will misinform you as to your rights in this situation to attempt to steer you towards a WCB claim.

Sometimes, the definition of "working" for WCB purposes is not so clear.  If you are paid for driving to and from work, either in wages or mileage, you are considered to be working during your commute.  If you are driving a company vehicle to and from work or are a passenger in such a vehicle, you are considered to be working.

If there is any vagueness as to your  rights in this situation, you should consult with a lawyer knowledgeable in the area of personal injury law.