10 Sep School Bus Driver Injured in Car Accident
The Plaintiff in Nadeau v. Toulmin, 2020 BCSC 866, was a school bus driver. She was injured in a motor vehicle accident when another driver suddenly pulled out in front of her bus. The Plaintiff elected to pursue a tort claim against the Defendant instead of pursuing compensation through WorkSafeBC.
In addition to soft tissue injuries, the Plaintiff claimed she suffered from a psychological injury which included post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, significant driving anxiety, and impaired sleep. ICBC denied that the accident caused the Plaintiff to suffer any psychological injuries.
The parties each retained experienced and highly qualified psychiatrists to provide their opinions concerning any mental health issues suffered by the Plaintiff. The opinions of the psychiatrists were in stark contrast to each other.
The Plaintiff’s expert was Dr. O’Breasail. He diagnosed the Plaintiff with chronic pain from physical factors, with psychological factors playing a role in the persistence and intensity of the pain. In his opinion, she also suffered from an Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depression resulting from the accident. An Adjustment Disorder is a mental illness in which the psychological reaction to a significant stress is out of proportion to the stress itself.
According to Dr. O’Breasail, the Plaintiff’s psychological injuries were precipitated by the accident. Her prominent symptom was anxiety but she also experienced depression, resulting in cognitive difficulties. The Plaintiff’s anxiety was more prominent when she was in a vehicle, whether driving or as a passenger, but was also generalized to other areas in her life and remained unresolved.
Dr. O’Breasail opined that the Plaintiff’s history put her at an increased risk of developing chronic pain and psychological problems if exposed to a major traumatic event. The motor vehicle accident was such an event.
Dr. O’Breasail recommended cognitive behavioural therapy (“CBT”) and an increased dosage of medication as appropriate interventions. The Plaintiff could not afford CBT so participated in supportive therapy instead, as recommended by her family doctor. Dr. O’Breasail’s prognosis for complete recovery was negative given the length of time the Plaintiff’s anxiety and depression had persisted. In his opinion, she would suffer from permanent partial vocational disability, impaired lifestyle and continued driving anxiety.
ICBC’s expert witness was Dr. Solomons. He reached an entirely different diagnosis. He did not agree that the Plaintiff suffered any mental health issues caused by the accident. In his opinion, any anxiety she may have was non-pathological and not related to the accident. He did not think treatment was necessary, other than the handful of counselling sessions she received shortly after the accident. In his opinion, she had no psychiatric impediment to driving a school bus again.
The judge held that it was clear Dr. Solomons’ opinions were based on inaccurate and critical factual assumptions. He did not realize that the Plaintiff had attempted to resume bus driving after the accident. He incorrectly assumed that she regularly drove a vehicle, had no anxiety getting into one and had no increased anxiety driving with her granddaughter as a passenger. He also assumed that her anxiety fully resolved within one month of the accident.
Dr. Solomons’ inaccurate factual assumptions caused him to reject the Plaintiff’s account of her symptoms. However, his assumptions were clearly contradicted by the unchallenged and highly credible and reliable evidence of the Plaintiff, her family and friends. Dr. Solomons also discounted the diagnosis made by her family physicians.
The opinions expressed by Dr. O’Breasail in his report and testimony were clear, candid, objective, without advocacy or argument, and premised on an analysis of facts proven in evidence. The judge accepted his opinions in their entirety.
In light of the significant factual inaccuracies underlying Dr. Solomons’ evaluation, the judge was unable to give his opinions any weight.
The judge accepted that the Plaintiff’s ongoing mental health issues left her with ongoing generalized and likely permanent anxiety associated with driving a vehicle and riding as a passenger. Although her psychological symptoms may have improved with certain interventions, the prospect for full resolution was poor.
The judge further accepted Dr. O’Breasail’s opinion that the accident was the traumatic event that caused the Plaintiff to suffer an Adjustment Disorder which might improve but would likely not resolve. Her psychological injury, which was caused by the collision, had resulted in permanent impaired function and vocational impairment.