Archive for March, 2008

Personal injury testimonial

Thursday, March 27th, 2008

On October 10th 2003 I was involved in a motor vehicle accident which changed my life forever. In a instant my hip, leg and back were fractured along with many other injuries. As I lay there, on the road, I could feel the sensation slowly leaving my legs and I ended up with a spinal cord injury.

After a couple of days I woke up and looked down at myself and I said “what a mess”. The next day I called McNally, Cuming Raymaker and I’m glad I did.

In the following week I met with James Cuming, a lawyer for McNally Cuming Raymaker, who explained to my wife and myself exactly what would happen in the following months if we decided to use them to represent me in my lawsuit.

From the beginning I trusted Jamie’s advise because of his commitment to me and his depth of knowledge and experience in the field of personal injury litigation. He explained to me that this litigation would be a long and difficult process. This prepared me for the ordeal that was to follow.

I was quite depressed after my 5 month stay in the hospital and I was convinced that I wasn’t gong to get better.

However, with Jamie’s encouragement, I realized that one day this whole nightmare would be over. During the next four years Jamie encouraged me to stay strong because at times I became quit discouraged. I was impressed with his professionalism and dedication to me and my case and with his knowledge of personal injury law.

As the final day (mediation) approached I was quite stressed, realizing this settlement would change my life one way or another. Jamie Cuming and Craig Gillespie joined forces and persevered and obtained a suitable and substantial settlement for me.

I highly recommend the firm of Cuming , Gillespie & Raymaker.

Russ Bray

Canadian Bar Association: Personal Injury Case Comment And Updates January - March, 2008

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

Mild to Moderate Soft Tissue Injuries: The Essential Collection

Palpal-Latoc v. Berstad, [2004] A.J. No. 240 the plaintiff suffered injuries which persisted for only seven months. At trial the jury awarded $2,500.00 for general damages. On Appeal, the Court held that $2,500.00 for a seven month injury was inordinately low and substituted an award of $12,000.00 for general damages [updated $13,500].

Sra v. Zhu, 2007 ABQB 426, the 54 year old male plaintiff was injured when he was tboned in a red light intersection collision. He suffered from lower back pain, neck pain and TMJ pain. The court was of the view that he had pre-existing injuries and was also in a subsequent accident. The court had concerns over the plaintiff’s credibility. The court held that his injuries resolved within three to four months. The court awarded $13,000.00 [updated $13,500] in general damages.

Reimer v. Polgar, [2005] A.J. No. 373 (Prov Ct.) the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries that were symptomatic for 11 months and were expected to continue on an intermittent basis for some time into the future. The court awarded general damages of $16,500 for the acute phase of less than 1 year plus an additional $3,000 for the ongoing intermittent pain for a total of $19,500.00 updated [$20,750].

Teichgraber v. Gallant, [2003] A.J. No. 70 the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in a very low impact collision. The court had concerns over the plaintiff=s credibility and found that many symptoms were exaggerated. The court was of the view that the plaintiff suffered a mild to moderate soft tissue injury to his neck and back which lasted six months and should have completely resolved after a short period of further intermittent pain. In this case the court assessed the general damages of at $17,000.00. [Updated $18,600].

Krawchuk v. Mellor, [2003] A.J. No. 216 the female plaintiff was rear ended and suffered soft tissue injuries. For only two months she had acute pain and then had lingering intermittent pain for 15 more months. The court awarded $18,000.00 in general damages [updated $19,725] for the two month acute injury combined with the ongoing intermittent and occasional pain.

Morrow v. Zhang, 2008 ABQB 98 the court considered the constitutionality of the Alberta Government “Cap” on soft tissue injuries. The court held that the cap was unconstitutional. In doing so the court assessed damages for two soft tissue injuries:

Pearl Morrow v. Jian Yue Zhang

The 34 year old female plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and upper back but was noted to have a history neck and back pain that predated the Collision. She experienced some tingling and numbness for 6 months post Collision. She was diagnosed with having a “WAD II” injury and mild lumbar strain and attended for 21 physiotherapy treatments. She also attended for 13 chiropractic adjustments and several massage therapy treatments. It was noted that the plaintiff had injuries that were acute for approximately 10 months with gradual improvement over 18 months. Balancing the plaintiffs moderate soft tissue injuries and her underlying medical history the court awarded $20,000.00 in General Damages. Wittmann J.

Brea Pederson v. Darin James Van Thournout et. al.

The 32 year old female plaintiff was rear ended while yielding to pedestrians. The plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders, back and wrists. Her neck, shoulder and back pain resolved within one month of the Collision. She continued to have wrist pain on an ongoing intermittent basis. The Certified Examiner suggested that the Plaintiff suffered a Grade II soft tissue injury to her neck and back and an injury to her wrist. For soft tissue injuries and the Grade I wrist strain injury the Court awarded $15,000.00 in General Damages. Wittmann J.

Ly v. Gilbert, 2001 CarswellAlta 1524 (Q.B.) two plaintiffs, both 36, suffered soft tissue injuries to their neck and back. Both had pre-existing injuries that were relatively asymptomatic at the time of the accident. They had decreased range of motion and tenderness with pain. The injuries, for the most part, resolved after one year with some ongoing minimal stiffness. The court awarded $25,000.00 [updated $29,000] and $20,000.00 [updated $23,200] respectively.

Dyck v. Wilkinson, [2004] A.J. No. 1155 the female plaintiff suffered neck and lower back pain with some hip pain that lasted approximately 18 months. The Court found that she would also have some intermittent ongoing pain beyond that time but none of her normal activities were restricted. The plaintiff had underlying degenerative disc disease that the Court held was not worsened by the accident. The Court also refused to accept that the Plaintiff had suffered from any permanent or partial impairment. In this case, with soft tissue injuries lasting approximately 18 months, Justice Rooke awarded $30,000.00 in general damages [updated $32,500].

Case Summaries Prepared by
Craig G. Gillespie
Cuming, Gillespie & Raymaker
403-571-0555 cgillespie@cuminggillespie.com

March 5, 2008 - Vioxx Case Update

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

A Communication to Class Members from the National Counsel Team:

In recent days and months, there has been significant media coverage about developments in Vioxx litigation, both in Canada and in the United States and you may be confused about what these developments mean and how they affect your rights. This update aims to provide you with some explanations and assistance in understanding the current situation with Vioxx litigation in Canada.

In November, 2007, Merck & Co. announced that it had agreed conditionally to settle a significant portion of the Vioxx claims in the U.S., setting aside approximately $4.85 billion to do so. Even though those cases deal with the exact same drug as the Canadian litigation, Merck has, to date, made no effort to establish a parallel settlement for Canadian users of Vioxx and Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has publicly and repeatedly stated its intention to vigorously defend all Vioxx lawsuits in Canada.

The defendants have raised various procedural hurdles which have slowed the progress of the litigation. As a result, all Vioxx lawsuits in Canada remain in various stages of litigation. In Ontario, there is a proposed national class action which has been brought on behalf of all Canadian users of Vioxx and their family members. A consortium of 19 eminent law firms from all across Canada has come together to collectively represent Canadians in this lawsuit and advance the strongest case possible. At this stage, all Canadians who took Vioxx (and their family members) are covered by this lawsuit, whether they take any active steps to contact counsel or not.

The Ontario action was originally scheduled to proceed to its certification hearing in October, 2007. This hearing is a mandatory step in the litigation process and decides whether or not the action should be allowed to proceed as a single class action lawsuit, for the benefit of all class members. Shortly before the Ontario hearing was scheduled to proceed, the defendants sought and were granted an adjournment in order to conduct cross-examinations of various witnesses. The rescheduled hearing was set to commence on February 13, 2008, but only several days before the certification hearing, the defendants sought to have Mr. Allan Rock, Q.C., the firm of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and the National Counsel Team disqualified as a result of Mr. Rock’s previous political career, during which he served, among other things, as the federal Minister of Health. As a result of this last minute motion, the certification hearing was, once again, adjourned.

Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard the removal motion on February 15, 2008. In a decision released on February 26, 2008, his Honour decided that Mr. Rock would have no further involvement in this case; however, Sutts, Strosberg LLP and the rest of the National Counsel Team remain as counsel in this action and strongly believe that the certification hearing should be rescheduled as soon as possible, and hopefully no later than April, 2008.

On November 9, 2006, Justice Andre Denis of the Quebec Superior Court authorized a class action for Quebec residents who suffered damages caused by the use of Vioxx. That case pertains to residents of Quebec only and is also continuing to work its way through the legal system.

In further recent Canadian Vioxx news, a separate case launched in Saskatchewan was certified as a class action in a decision released on February 20, 2008. We welcome the decision of Mr. Justice John Klebuc in determining that litigation related to Vioxx is an appropriate case for certification; however, we note also that Merck has already indicated its intention to appeal that decision which will likely stay the certification decision and any related certification order. Practically speaking, this means that this case will be on hold until Merck’s appeal rights are exhausted.

We should also note that the decision allows Canadians who do not reside in Saskatchewan to participate in the class action on an “opt in” basis. If you do not reside in Saskatchewan but choose to “opt in” to this action, you may be precluded from participating in the Ontario action or be represented by the National Counsel Team. It will be very important to consider how your rights will be affected before deciding whether or not to opt in to the Saskatchewan class action. Again, in view of Merck’s intention to appeal Mr. Justice Klebuk’s decision, it is likely that this aspect of the case will be on hold pending the appeals process as well.

Because Merck has not, to date, indicated any willingness to make any settlement proposal for Canadian Vioxx users, in spite of their multi-billion dollar settlement proposal in the US, the current strategy of the National Counsel Team is to drive the Ontario litigation forward and deal with the case on the merits. The time for class members to make any necessary decisions about how to advance their individual claims will arise after these various proceedings have been finally determined following a common issues trial. It is unfortunately not possible to predict with certainty how long this process may take; however updates will be provided as they become available.

As members of the National Counsel Team, we wish to express our appreciation to all class members for their patience to date with this complex litigation and we wish to assure you all that everything is being done to ensure that you receive the justice you so rightly deserve.