The Personal Injury Case Comments and Updates from the Canadian Bar Association for the Spring of 2012 (January through May) can be viewed and downloaded by clicking on this link.
The Personal Injury Case Comments and Updates from the Canadian Bar Association for the Spring of 2012 (January through May) can be viewed and downloaded by clicking on this link.
Collection of Interest on Disbursements Schmolzer v. Higenbottam, 2009 ABQB 616. [B.E. Romaine] The 35 year old male Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury or concussion. The court awarded general damages of $75,000. The court was asked to consider whether the Plaintiff was entitled to interest on the disbursements incurred to prosecute his claim. The court refused to grant the plaintiff interest on disbursements holding:
I agree with the Defendants that the facts of Bourgoin v. Ouellette  N.B.J. No. 164 are distinguishable, and that in Mr. Schmolzer’s case, there is not a strong access to justice issue that would warrant an exceptional award of interest on disbursements. I therefore decline to grant interest on disbursements for expert fees.
It appears that the issue may still be argued depending on the particular circumstances of each case and whether there is an access to justice issue. Chronic Pain: Aggravation of an underlying “asymptomatic” injury. Do v. Sheffer, 2010 ABQB 86 [D. Lee] The male plaintiff was involved in collision in November 2002. The Plaintiff had a significant pre existing history of low back pain that included a surgical repair 10 months before the collision. The Plaintiff claimed for injuries to his thumb, neck pain, upper back pain and aggravation of low back pain. The court found that:
The court held that trauma resulted in much of the Plaintiffs ongoing complaints. The court held that the collision and trauma was the cause of the plaintiff’s permanent disability. The court awarded $85,000 in general damages for continuing and permanent neck, shoulder and back injuries. As a side note, the court considered whether RRSP withdrawals should be compensated. The court refused to compensate for the withdrawal but seemed to cite lack of evidence as the reason. Lastly, notwithstanding the court finding a permanent disability, no award for past loss of housekeeping was granted and it was included the general damages. Personal Injury Refresher Adeshina et. al. [2010 ABQB 80] This case covers many issues relative to the practice of personal injury law including, standard of care, settlement offers, client updates, exchange of expert reports and advocacy. This case will the subject of a loss prevention seminar in June. Rule 217 Within the case the court stated that Rule 217 is to be considered in a broad fashion. In essence, when a plaintiff is served with a medical report under Rule 217 it triggers an obligation to disclose all “like reports”. This should be interpreted to include all medical reports, health care provider reports and even raw testing data. The distinction between a “physician” and “health care provider” is eliminated. If the report covers the plaintiffs injuries it is to be produced. Trial within a Trial The plaintiff sued all of his former lawyers for settling his claim for an improper amount. The court rejected his claims and dismissed his action. However, the court provisionally assessed the damages that were likely had his claim not been settled. The court held his best case was in the range of $620,000. If the court had concerns about his credibility it was likely that he would not beat the first Formal offer of $275,000. The plaintiff complained of chronic pain, mild head injury, mild hearing loss, TMJ injury, right shoulder injury with surgery and depression. The plaintiff alleged that the injuries forced him to quit his job. The court provisionally assessed general damages at $120,000 for the constellation of injuries. “Informal” Offers and Costs Mahe v. Boulianne, 2010 ABCA 32 In this case the plaintiff was awarded in excess in $500,000 at trial for a fall from a pole. The defendant appealed alleging that the allocation of fault was too low. The court of appeal agreed and reduced damages awarded at trial [2010 ABCA 32]. Between the end of trial and the start of the appeal, the defendant offered to pay the limit of the policy of insurance being $500,000. The offer was rejected. At the conclusion of the Appeal the claim was reduced to $375,000. The defendant sought double costs from time of the offer to the conclusion of the appeal. The $500,000 was made on a “without prejudice basis” and did not refer to any of the Rules dealing with Formal Offers. The Court of Appeal held that all offers, whether made without prejudice or not are privileged. However, the privilege is subject to an exception. There is an exception in that “without prejudice” offers can be referred to when the merits of the dispute have been decided. The court made it clear that “informal offers that arguably do not comply with the Rules can have an effect on costs”. This case reinforces the need to properly educate a client as to the nature of the offer and the upside and downside of accepting or rejecting it. Case Summaries Prepared byCraig G. Gillespie Cuming & Gillespie 403-571-0555 email@example.com
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Schmolzer v. Higenbottam, 2009 ABQB 522. [B.E. Romaine] The 35 year old male Plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury or concussion. The soft tissue injuries resolved within 12 months. The court accepted the evidence of both plaintiff and defendant expert that the head injury was fairly classified as a mild traumatic brain injury or alternatively, a concussion. It should be noted that there was only a brief loss of consciousness, a GCS of 15 at the scene and no diagnosis of head injury made. The court awarded general damages of $75,000. Egglestone v. Cox, 2009 ABQB 584. [L.D. Wilkins] The male plaintiff was involved in a t-bone collision on July 1, 2004. The plaintiff suffered from a non displaced fractured vertebra in his neck resulting in an 8% impairment. The plaintiff also suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck, upper back and shoulders as well as headaches. These were acute for approximately 15 moths with ongoing residual chronic pain. It was also alleged that the plaintiff suffered a head injury. It was noted that there was likely no loss of consciousness and only minor issues with memory around the time of the Collision. The plaintiff was noted to have an underlying history of depression. The plaintiff was diagnosed by a neurologist and a number of IME’s as having a concussion and post-concussion syndrome. The court rejected the diagnosis and held:
For these reasons, I accept the opinions of Dr. King and Dr. Levin that the symptoms of neurological or psychological difficulties disclosed by the Plaintiff were not proven, on a balance of probabilities to have been caused by the accident. They would have occurred in any event “but for” the accident due to his untreated depressive illness or his adjustment disorders.
The court awarded general damages of $75,000. Park v. Jordan and Jordan ABQB No. 0801-00138 [Mr. Justice Mahoney]. The 41 year old male Plaintiff was a passenger in a pick-up truck that went over a 20 to 30-foot cliff into a riverbank. The Defendant was the driver. The Plaintiff suffered the following injuries: spiral fracture of his right humeral shaft, decreased sensation in his arm due to a crushed radial nerve, aggravation of a pre-existing back condition, and restricted range of motion in his shoulder. Two years after the incident, the Plaintiff continued to experience episodes of chronic pain in his cervical, upper thoracic and lumbar spine, for which no future relief was predicted. The Plaintiff sustained a permanent arm impairment of 10%, representing 6% whole person impairment. In determining damages for the soft tissue injuries, the Court held that the aggravated back injury and minor neck injury were at the low end of the moderate soft tissue injury. The damages would be worth $7,500 under the old regime and were therefore capped at $4,000 pursuant to the proper meaning of the Minor Injury Regulation, Alberta Regulation 123/2004. Mr. Justice Mahoney discussed how the cap should be applied to the determination of damages, indicating that:
The cap works on the basis that if general damages under the old regime would have been assessed at $4,001 based on decided law, then that amount of damages is reduced to $4,000. If general damages for a minor injury would have been assessed at $10,000, that amount is reduced to $4,000. If general damages are assessed any higher, they are all reduced to $4,000. All damages for minor injury above $4,000 are reduced to $4,000, but any claim that previously would have been worth $4,000 or more is not somehow assessed and prorated on the basis of how it measures against the worst possible minor injury.
The Court awarded the cap of $4,000 plus $75,000 in general damages, subject to a 10% deduction for contributory negligence on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt. Relevant Quoted Passage from Park v. Jordan and Jordan
…I am told some insurance companies take the position that the cap is similar to the cap in the trilogy cases. In other words, the $4,000 cap is a maximum that can be achieved for the most seriously injured person sustaining minor injuries as defined in the regulation. Therefore, so the argument goes, the $4,000 cap is not always awarded in each case. In reading the legislation I do not find any language that would have the cap work that way. The cap works on the basis that if general damages under the old regime would have been assessed at $4,001 based on decided law, then that amount of damages is reduced to $4,000. If general damages for a minor injury would have been assessed at $10,000, that amount is reduced to $4,000. If general damages are assessed any higher, they are all reduced to $4,000.
All damages for minor injury above $4,000 are reduced to $4,000, but any claim that previously would have been worth $4,000 or more is not somehow assessed and prorated on the basis of how it measures against the worst possible minor injury. If the legislature wanted that approach, it would have made its intention unambiguously clear.
Case Summaries Prepared by Craig G. Gillespie Cuming & Gillespie Lawyers 403-571-0555 firstname.lastname@example.org
Facial Lacerations and Fractured Arm Weatherall v. Scaba  ABQB 689. The male plaintiff suffered a fractured left forearm and facial lacerations in a high speed collision. The plaintiff also claimed to have suffered from neck injuries and left shoulder injuries both of which required surgery. The court completely dismissed the shoulder and neck injuries and held that they were pre-existing and not aggravated in any way by the Collision. The court awarded $32,000 in general damages. [E. Wilson] Unnecessary Surgery, Abdominal Pain and Fatigue Whitt v. Purkin, 2008 ABQB 6664. The plaintiff brought a medical negligence claim for an unnecessary surgery that left him with abdominal wall pain and fatigue that lasted for 2 years. The plaintiff also battled an infection following the procedure and was left with a scar. The court awarded $42,000 for what it found was 2 years of pain and suffering. The court also awarded 12 years of PJI finding that there was no clear evidence of intentional delay. [C.L. Kenny] Soft Tissue Injury 18 monthsLawson v. Le, 2008 ABQB 275. The female plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident and suffered soft tissue injuries and an alleged Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The court found the plaintiff was a malinger and not honest. The court rejected the claim for PTSD and found that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries that were “not severe”. The injury occurred in February 2001 and the plaintiff was noted to be golfing in the spring of 2001 and was able to landscape in the summer of 2001. The court awarded $27,500 for soft tissue injuries that fully recovered within 18 months. [J.B. Veit] Chronic Pain Bearchell v. King  CarswellAlta 884. The female plaintiff was struck by a van while crossing the street. She claimed to suffer from chronic neck pain, shoulder pain, upper back pain and lower back pain that lasted over 6 years and was ongoing. The court found that the plaintiff was not credible and at times “faked” her injuries. The court found that the injuries should have resolved within six weeks to six months with some ongoing residual symptoms [Para 127]. The court rejected the claim that the chronic pain condition was caused by the collision. The court awarded $32,000 for the mild to moderate injury noting that the plaintiff was vulnerable and may have had more pain than the average person.
Case Summaries Prepared by Craig G. Gillespie Cuming & Gillespie Lawyers 403-571-0555 email@example.com
Pre-Judgment Interest: Date of injury not claim Willeson v. Calgary (City)  A.J. No. 564. The plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and a concussion. At trial, the judge awarded $45,000 for general damages. The judge held that pre-judgment interest was to be calculated from the time the Statement of Claim was served not the date of the accident. The Court of Appeal upheld the award of general damages. The Court went to hold that interest is to be calculated from the date of the accident as that is when the defendant was aware of a claim. Soft Tissue Injury: One Year Deo v. Wong,  B.C.J. No. 466 the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in a collision. The court concluded that the soft tissue injuries to the plaintiff’s neck and back resolved within 1 year. The plaintiff also developed knee pain 6 months after the collision. At trial the court awarded $36,650 for all of the injuries including the knee. On appeal, the court held that the knee injury was not related and reduced the damages by $7,000. The British Columbia Court of Appeal supported and affirmed an award of $29,650 for a moderate soft tissue injury that resolved within one year. Chronic Pain O’Scolai v. Antrajenda  A.J. No. 495 the female plaintiff was rear ended in what the court called a minor collision. After 4 years, the plaintiff had not returned to work and was suffering from neck pain, shoulder pain, TMJ pain, weakness in her limbs, nausea and vomiting. After a period of time the plaintiff developed a severe abnormal posture in her neck. The court considered issues of causation and credibility. The court noted that the plaintiff had prior complaints of pain in her neck and shoulder that was noted to be severe at times. The court also concluded that the plaintiff deliberately exaggerated her symptoms. The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from an aggravation of neck and shoulder pain, TMJ pain, nausea and vomiting. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s abnormal neck posture and weakness in her limbs were not caused by the collision. The court concluded that after the passing of 4 years the plaintiff did continue to have a degree of pain in her neck and jaw as well as reduced range of motion but that the severity was exaggerated. The court awarded $75,000 for general damages. [Justice Read] Case Summaries Prepared by Craig G. Gillespie Cuming & Gillespie Lawyers 403-571-0555 firstname.lastname@example.org
Mild to Moderate Soft Tissue Injuries: The Essential Collection Palpal-Latoc v. Berstad,  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,  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,  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,  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,  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 Lawyers 403-571-0555 email@example.com
December 2007 The One Percent Rule Revisited In Danek v. Calgary (City), 2007 ABQB 670 the Defendant City of Calgary took the position that the Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act was responsible for paying a portion of a judgment where liability was joint. In short, the City took issue with the 1% Rule. The court disagreed with the City and confirmed that in cases involving multiple tortfeasors, the Administrator does not contribute if any other party is at least 1% liable. The Fund is a recovery source of last resort. Master Hanebury The Right to a Nominee during a Rule 217 Examination In Nistor v. Kankolongo, 2007 ABQB 684 the Plaintiff wanted to have his own nominee present during a Rule 217 Psychological exam. The Defendant objected citing concerns that a third party nominee may negatively impact the quality of testing. The court disagreed with the Defendant and directed that the nominee be present. The court confirmed the principle that the Plaintiff’s right to have a nominee present is absolute. M.B. Bielby No Liability for a Municipality for Trees Near an Intersection In Malmas Estate v. Mittelstadt, 2007 ABQB 648 the Defendants issued a Third Party Notice against the County of Wetaskiwin No. 10 for failing to erect signage at an uncontrolled intersection and for failing to clear trees that allegedly obscured the intersection. The County brought a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that section 533 of the Municipal Government Act provided a complete defence. The court agreed and held that a County cannot be liable for a decision not to control an intersection or for trees that might obscure the intersection. The principles of stare decisis should be followed. S. SandermanMinor Soft Tissue Injures: British Columbia In Dadson v. Gallo,  B.C.J. No. 2215, the female plaintiff suffered a minor injury in a low impact collision. The plaintiff maintained that her injuries were acute for 6 months and generally symptomatic for 17 months. The court disagreed and held that the injuries “were resolved sometime within four to six months from the date of the accident.” The court was of the view that strain was no worse than Grade II and awarded $15,000.00 for general damages. The court also awarded loss of housekeeping of $3,000.00. D. Satanove Post Traumatic Stress Only: Damages for Nervous Shock In Arnold v. Cartwright Estate,  B.C.J. the male plaintiff attended at the scene of an accident and assisted with first aid on the victims, three of who died. Eleven months later the plaintiff suffered a panic attack and was diagnoses with post traumatic stress and bipolar disorder. The court awarded damages for the post traumatic stress finding that it was sufficiently connected to the accident. The court did not award damages for losses it determined flowed from the bi-polar disorder. For Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms lasting 12 to 18 months the court awarded $10,000.00 for general damages. G.B. Butler Case Summaries Prepared by Craig G. Gillespie Cuming & Gillespie 403-571-0555 firstname.lastname@example.org www.cuminggillespie.com *If you have interesting cases that you think should be summarized please email me the citation for review.
Multiple Injuries with Chronic Pain In Park v. Heimbeckner, 2007 ABQB, 386 the 29 year old male plaintiff suffered serious injuries when he was ejected from a vehicle involved in a high speed collision on December 30th, 2001.The plaintiff suffered eight fractures to his cervical spine, a minor closed head injury, a broken right foot, a severe injury to his and a torn rotator cuff on his left shoulder. Additionally, the plaintiff suffered from a laceration on his scalp which required a skin graft and four surgical procedures. The court concluded that as a result of his injuries the plaintiff was in constant severe pain and suffered from bouts of depression and sexual dysfunction. For the significant injuries and ongoing chronic pain the court awarded $160,000.00 for general damages. It should be noted that notwithstanding the seriousness of the injuries, the court did not award damages for loss of housekeeping and instead factored the amount into the general damages. Mild to Moderate Soft Tissue Injury at Low Speed In Gerlitz v. Lee, 2007 ABQB 495, the 25 year old male plaintiff was rear ended in August of 2001. The evidence suggested that there was minimal damage to either vehicle and that the speed of the defendant vehicle was around 4.5 km/h. The plaintiff suffered from neck pain and back pain after the collision. Notwithstanding treatment the plaintiff complained of ongoing back pain to the time of trial (6 years). The court concluded that collision caused a “whiplash type injury in the mild to moderate range” and awarded $35,000.00 in general damages. It should be noted that at the time of the Collision the Plaintiff was a martial arts instructor.
He claimed between $700,000 – $3,000,000.00 in loss of income and earning capacity as a result of his inability to run his business. The court accepted that loss of earning capacity can be proven on a simple probability basis however found no evidence to justify a large award. The court awarded $68,000.00 for loss of income. Minor Brain Injury, Fractured Wrist and Moderate Soft Tissue Injuries In Seich v. Tobin, 2007 ABQB 492 the 21 year old male plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle struck a van. Liability was in issue and apportioned equally. The court concluded that the plaintiff sustained a fractured wrist with ongoing impairment, moderate soft tissue injuries to his neck and back which lasted 3-4 years, and a mild brain injury that did not cause any long term deficits. The court awarded $80,000.00 in general damages and reduced the amount by half for liability. Again this award was inclusive of housekeeping damages. Production of Medical Charts In Prasad v. Weber, 2007 ABQB, the female plaintiff filed a claim alleging ongoing injuries to her neck, shoulders and back etc. The injuries were alleged to be permanent and ongoing – i.e. “chronic”. At discovery defence counsel requested a number of medical charts from the Alberta Statement of Benefits. The plaintiff refused on the basis that they were not relevant. The Master directed the charts be produced and the Justice, on appeal, agreed. The court concluded that the starting point for relevancy and materiality was the pleadings. In this case, the pleadings alleged an ongoing “chronic” injury. The defence maintained that the injuries could have been caused by other sources. The court agreed that the “mere fact that a plaintiff puts their health into issue does not entitle a Defendant to review the Plaintiff’s entire medical history and to the medical chart records of any treating physician . . .” However, the court went on to say that when the Plaintiff “raised the issue of her severe and ongoing pain . . .” the records of any treatment provider that could disclose pain would be relevant. The court directed that the records be ordered and produced subject to any objections over relevance. This decision seems to suggest that if the allegations are in the nature of an ongoing “chronic” injury the entire medical history may be relevant, and at the very least, needs to be canvassed. From a practice perspective, it appears that all records on the SOBP should be ordered and then reviewed for relevance. Soft Tissue and TMJ Injury In Sra v. Zhu, 2007 ABQB 426, the 54 year old male plaintiff was injured when he was t-boned 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 in general damages and held that higher awards are for cases involving permanent partial disability or there is a long period of recovery or chronic pain. The court included loss of housekeeping in this general damages.
Case Summaries Prepared by Craig G. Gillespie Cuming & Gillespie Lawyers 403-571-0555 email@example.com *If you have interesting cases that you think should be summarized please email me the citation for review.
Thank you so very much for taking care of me.
My life has changed 180 degrees from where I thought it was going before my accident. The day it happened I never could have imagined that years later I would still be dealing with what happened in just a few seconds.
I so appreciate the obvious hard work by each of you. The magnitude of what you have done for me is beyond words.
I have become an extremely emotional person that truly can’t function under any kind of stress. You have made it possible for me to continue to take care of myself by providing the financial means to do so.
Dee-Ann, I truly hope you realize that you saved my life every time you talked me through that city!Client Testimonial
Craig’s combination of integrity, professionalism, attention to detail and high moral standards coupled with his down to earth attitude makes him stand out in his profession. I am very grateful to Craig for all that he has done for me.K.M.
I wanted to express my utmost gratitude to you and your firm for handling this case so professionally and achieving such a good result. It was a true joy working with you.AL’s Spouse
Thank you so very much for the good news on settlement. I am very grateful to you for taking on this rather problematic file and negotiating a good outcome. You made a tough situation bearableAL
Thank you to you and your staff for all your efforts pertaining to my file(s). I appreciate everything you did to represent me and I am very pleased with my settlement. I thoroughly enjoyed working with you and always felt like I was in good hands. Your professionalism, knowledge and understanding of my personal circumstances was second to none. I will continue to pass along your name and the firm’s name to anyone requiring your services.L.S.
“Dear Cuming & Gillespie, We would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for being there every step of the way. My accident was on September 17, 2008. I was hit by a truck while cycling to work in Red Deer, Alberta. We settled on April 30, 2013. I experienced many uncertainties, but Cuming & Gillespie was there to take charge of all the legal aspects, as well to insure us with a peace of mind and of the road ahead. Their objective was to see that I focused on my medical issues and health as best as I could, and to maximize my recovery. It took everything I had to do that. Cuming & Gillespie took care of absolutely everything else. Being in an accident is never a good place to be in. I had a great Professional team that knew what they were doing. You are awesome. Thanks, S&S”Cycle Injury Settlement Testimonial
“To all lawyers and staff at Cuming & Gillespie: I just wanted to send you all a big thank you for everyone’s hard work during the period you represented me for my claim. I appreciate all the time and effort you dedicated to this final ending. Every single one of you have been incredibly professional and compassionate at the same time. It has been a long road for me and I’m glad I chose Cuming & Gillespie to guide me along the way. You have all done such a great job and I thank you again. M.U.”Personal Injury Testimonial
“Going for a drive to get my daughter material for a school project became a life changer when we were involved in a serious car crash. Dealing with insurance companies is difficult when you are injured and worried about your future. Cuming & Gillespie made our life better! Truthful and efficient. The professionalism and expertise exhibited by Cuming & Gillespie are highly recommended should you ever require representation. Mother and daughter”Motor Vehicle Accident Testimonial
“Cuming & Gillespie Lawyers, Thank you for your guidance and assistance through the “shark tank.” Without your oversight and direction I know that I would have been eaten alive. I am confident that we achieved the best settlement possible. I also feel that a huge burden has now lifted as I now have the funds that will ensure the provision of all of the care needed for the remainder of life. T.M. October 2012”Settlement Testimonial
“Thank you for being my lawyer. Your kindness and patience made me feel safe and completely supported through a difficult process. If it would be of any help to you, please know that you have my complete confidence and I would not hesitate to refer you to anyone. I believe you are the best.
I wish you success and joy in all your endeavors. I will not forget you.”
“I would like to thank you and your firm for looking after my accident claim. I appreciate that you responded directly to all my inquiries within the day. You explained legal concerns in layman’s terms and took time and were patient with answering all my questions. Initially I was concerned about winning the claim and felt justified in receiving a settlement, yet was unsure of how this would play out. With your professional expertise in handling my case, we came out winning. I am very pleased with the settlement I recently received and the service your firm offered to me. Thank you again for your service and care, Cuming & Gillespie. NP”
“Cuming & Gillespie, I wanted to send you a note to say thank you for doing such a good job on my case. I hired you because you were recommended to me. I can tell you that I will refer anyone who needs a lawyer to you because of my experience with you. J.W.”
“When I got in my accident I was unsure about what to do and worried about being fairly compensated for my severe injuries. After calling several lawyers I called Cumming and Gillespie and I just got a better feeling from them. Throughout the process they were always quick to answer my questions and respond to my emails. I was happy with my settlement amount and feel confident I received more than I would have if I were to settle without a lawyer. I’m hoping I never have to use their services again, but I would definitely use them again if needed and highly recommend their services.”Client Recommendation
“I knew when I first came to Cuming & Gillespie that they would do the best job for me.
This has been a pleasant experience because right from the beginning, and throughout, Cuming & Gillespie consistently demonstrated to me a high level of integrity. I always knew what was happening and what we shared was coming from a place of understanding and truth.”Client Recommendation
“Dear Cuming & Gillespie, I just wanted to take the opportunity to send you my sincere thanks in helping my case come to a settlement. Your professional, assertive demeanor and extensive knowledge in the law will certainly help more clients such as myself. I appreciate your efficiency including prompt return to calls/emails etc and always provided me updates which kept my mind at ease. Your patience and explanations throughout the process was much appreciated. You were my greatest advocate in reaching a fair settlement that I was deserving of and never would have otherwise received. I am very happy with the outcome. Thank you again for your commitment and dedication to my case which produced such positive results. Thanks to you and your firm who I would highly recommend. W.B, September 2012”
“J.B. and I are very pleased with our settlement outcome. We would like to take this opportunity and thank you and your team for your time, effort and understanding which demonstrates that you knew our struggle and fought for us. You explaining situations we never understood eased our frustration and concerns, which showed us that you cared. There were times I believed our case was a lost cause, but you and your team helped us stay strong. Your services and professionalism far exceeded our expectations and when a company can live up to the high standards as yours did, one can never lose.”
“When I was involved in a serious car accident, my life changed forever. It quickly became apparent that I was going to have a long recovery ahead of me. As a lawyer, I knew that I needed counsel that I could trust to protect my interests and pursue my claim in a highly competent manner so that I could spend my time and energy on my physical and emotional health instead of my legal situation. I had many high expectations, in particular regarding strategy and communication, and the lawyers and staff of Cuming & Gillespie met them all. Over the years that ensued, Craig was always available to deal with any matter on the file and his advice on my claim was excellent. I never once felt the need to second guess how the file was being handled, which is a challenge for many lawyers. Legal Assistant Dee-Anne was invaluable to the process – extremely organized, responsive, and friendly. When the claim was resolved, the best possible outcome was achieved. The manner in which my file was handled was without par and the firm’s commitment to my claim was evident in the outcome. As such, I would highly recommend Cuming & Gillespie. -T.M”
“Craig, it’s difficult to find a way to express my gratitude to you. I thought my lawsuit was a lost cause until I hired you. I appreciate your honesty and professionalism. You are one of a kind, the best of the best. CG”Client Testimonial
“To Cuming & Gillespie, I just wanted to say THANK YOU to both of you! I appreciate all your hard work and for keeping me updated and reminding me to be patient until my claim settled. I hope you both feel great about what you do because it has sure benefited my life! Thank you for your time and attention to detail. I hope you have a fantastic day!! Client J.D. April 2012”
“To the staff of Cuming and Gillespie
I just wanted to thank you for handling my claim. Craig, you have been so professional and honest through out the 4+ years that I have been your client. Both you and Dee-Anne were great to deal with and provided me with the highest level of service and promptness. You took care of me from day 1 and right through to the settlement and closure of my claim and I greatly appreciate all the effort and advice that you gave to me. I am very happy at the outcome of the settlement and will be forever grateful to you and your staff. I strongly recommend anyone seeking an injury lawyer to use Cuming and Gillespie, you will not be disappointed, you guys are the best! Take care. JT”
“I feel very fortunate to have found Cuming & Gillespie. After meeting with several injury lawyers, my husband & I agreed Cuming & Gillespie were by far the best. Choosing Cuming & Gillespie was one of the best decisions I’ve made since the accident, and tell people over and over how fortunate I am to have the best injury lawyer in the city (and probably Western Canada). C&G are very approachable, honest, and genuinely cares about his clients’ well being. They went far beyond our expectations in handling the legal case as well as in referring me to top medical providers and providing vocational / occupational services along the way. Thanks, I’m confident that you negotiated the highest possible settlement and always acted with integrity! J.P.”