The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled against a Nanaimo driver who wanted $300,000 from ICBC after a car crash left him with a permanent pink dot blocking part of his vision.
On Nov. 21, 2021, Richard Peter Broad was stopped at a red light when another driver rear-ended his vehicle. The driver who was rear-ended claimed that the crash "caused vitreous matter to break free in his left eye, leaving a permanent pink dot or 'floater' blocking part of his vision."
Peter Nyhuus, tribunal member, ruled that while he finds that the applicant proved to have suffered a permanent impairment in the accident, his claim was dismissed due to not providing evidence that the impairment entitled him to permanent impairment compensation under the insurance vehicle act and permanent impairment regulation. As a result, ICBC was found to have been correct in its decision not to provide compensation for the injury under the current law.
Under the regulations, ICBC determines compensation through a mathematical formula based on a series of impact factors including visual efficiency, ocular motility, visual acuity and visual field.
The tribunal member's decision stated that the applicant's permanent impairment compensation is determined "by multiplying the permanent impairment rating by $167,465. I agree with ICBC that applying the formula results in permanent impairment compensation of zero per cent."
The tribunal noted that ICBC acknowledged that the permanent impairment calculation "may seem unorthodox," however, various other impairments also return a zero per cent rating, including reduced smell or partial loss of smell, loss of sensation in the ear canal, and medial or lateral meniscal sprains.
The applicant argued that "there is more to his injury than just the technical aspects" pointing to being a working artist most of his life, with jobs in the film industry as an art director, illustrator, scenic artist, and sculptor 香蕉视频直播� all of which require the use of colour and colour co-ordination. Considering impacts on his work and his hobbies, he sought $300,000 for what he viewed as fair compensation.
The tribunal acknowledged that the regulation "focuses on the technical aspects of his injury rather than [the applicant's] experience of living with it." However, as the permanent impairment regulation is the law in B.C., the tribunal "must apply it."
As part of the ruling, the tribunal member wrote that the applicant's case was complicated because of glaucoma unrelated to the accident. The patient's ophthalmologist said the glaucoma is causing vision loss, while the posterior vitreous detachment is causing a "visual disturbance;" however, the doctor's opinion did not explain the impact of the detachment on the patient's vision in isolation from the glaucoma.
The tribunal noted that ICBC stated that it will continue to assess and reassess the applicant's entitlement to permanent impairment compensation under the law if he "provides additional evidence demonstrating that his permanent impairment entitles him to compensation."
