Oliver Wilson was recently successful in obtaining a Minor Injury (MI) determination before the Civil Resolution Tribunal, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s reliance on multiple independent medical examinations (IMEs). A central feature of the decision was the Tribunal’s preference for direct evidence regarding her functional abilities. While the plaintiff relied largely on expert medical opinion, Oliver provided excerpts from the plaintiff’s discovery transcript demonstrating her functional abilities, which the Tribunal expressly noted as persuasive.
The Tribunal found that the plaintiff had missed several weeks of work following a motor vehicle accident but she successfully completed a graduated return to work and there was no evidence of ongoing workplace restrictions or accommodations thereafter.
The plaintiff had been diagnosed with multiple conditions, including chronic cervical and left shoulder soft tissue injuries, concussion with post-concussive symptoms, tinnitus, and alleged cognitive, psychological, and sleep disturbances. The Tribunal considered numerous IME reports (e.g., psychiatrist, neurologist, neuropsychologist, and physiatrist). Importantly, the Tribunal member assessed each diagnosed condition individually, asking whether it caused functional incapacity – an approach that provides a useful roadmap for assessing MI submissions.
With respect to the concussion, the Tribunal rejected arguments based on post-accident schooling and employment difficulties, finding no evidence of actual restrictions, declined duties, or impact on activities of daily living (ADL).
Regarding psychological conditions, the Tribunal was critical of the psychiatric opinion describing the plaintiff’s impairments as “extreme,” noting that it lacked objective evidence demonstrating actual functional impairment (para. 39). By contrast, the neuropsychologist documented significant improvement, including a successful return to work and the ability to perform ADLs, even if mood issues occasionally affected her functioning (paras. 40-41).
On the physical injury claims, the Tribunal found the physiatrist’s opinion particularly problematic. The opinion suggested that the plaintiff was “substantially unable to perform her essential tasks of normal life,” but failed to explain how the identified limitations translated into real-world functional impairment or affected her actual job duties. The Tribunal criticized the lack of objective detail and expressed concern that the expert was effectively usurping the Tribunal’s role as trier of fact (paras. 48-49). An occupational therapy discharge report confirming the plaintiff could perform ADLs, albeit more slowly and with discomfort, was also found insufficient to meet the statutory threshold for serious impairment (paras. 50-51).
Ultimately, the Tribunal found that none of the plaintiff’s injuries met the threshold for serious impairment and concluded that all injuries were minor. As a result, Oliver was successful on the MI determination, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs. The decision underscores the need for plaintiffs to exercise care when challenging minor injury determinations, particularly given the potential cost consequences of pursuing extensive expert evidence without corresponding proof of functional incapacity.