disability insurance

Undercompensation of Mental Distress Damages in Disability Insurance

disability insurance - mental distress undercompensation

Disability Insurance: Undercompensation of Mental Distress Damages

Insights into Disability Insurance undercompensation by Long-Term Disability Lawyer Tim Louis

Introduction

Disability insurance is contractual in nature. When a disability insurer denies benefits to a disabled claimant, the claimant may sue for breach of contract to recover the benefits. Additionally, the claimant may seek mental distress damages, punitive damages, and special costs. Mental distress damages are intended as compensation for the claimant’s psychological injury; punitive damages are intended to punish the insurer’s misconduct; and special costs are awarded only in unique circumstances.

This article focuses on mental distress damages. As these damages are compensatory, they are comparable in nature to damages for psychological injuries in tort; yet, mental injuries have given rise to substantially higher quantum awards in tort claims than in disability insurance cases. This disparity is only partially explained by disability insurance claimants’ pre-existing conditions. In this article, we examine this disparity and the case law through which it has arisen, and propose that this disparity has no principled basis.

Contract and Tort Law: Similar Compensatory Principles

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 9 Ex. 341 [Hadley], a decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, provided that where one party had breached a contract, the other party could claim compensatory damages arising “from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.”

In Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 30 [Fidler], the court applied the principles of Hadley to a disability insurance contract. The court reasoned that disability insurance contracts are “peace of mind” contracts: the insured party has entered the contract for the tangible benefit of financial payments if disabled, but also for the intangible psychological benefit of having a reasonable expectation of income security. Both parties would have reasonably contemplated these benefits at the time they made the contract. As such, if an insurer wrongfully withheld disability benefit payments, the insured’s mental distress arising from their loss of income security would be compensable, following the principle set out in Hadley.

Psychological injuries are compensable in tort claims through non-pecuniary damages. The courts have implied that the mental distress damages arising from breach of contract should be the same as those arising through a tort claim. In Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27 [Mustapha], the court stated with respect to damages that “[w]ith regards to Mr. Mustapha’s psychiatric injury, there is no inconsistency in principle or in outcome between negligence law and contract law.” This was followed in Lau v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 BCCA 253 [Lau], with the court stating “[t]he test for mental distress damages is, in principle, the same in contract and in tort.”

In Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28 [Saadati], the court determined that a psychiatric diagnosis was not a prerequisite for compensation for psychological injuries in tort law. The court reasoned that the damages awarded for mental injury are not based on the injured party’s diagnosis, but rather on that party’s symptoms and their effects (para 31). While Saadati was based on a tort claim, its reasoning was adopted and applied in Lau for mental distress arising from a breach of contract.

Contract and Tort Law: Similar Tests for Psychological Damages

Where an insurer has wrongfully denied disability benefits, the test for whether to award mental distress damages is provided in Fidler at paragraph 47:

The court must be satisfied: (1) that an object of the contract was to secure a psychological benefit that brings mental distress upon breach within the reasonable contemplation of the parties; and (2) that the degree of mental suffering caused by the breach was of a degree sufficient to warrant compensation

The test for whether to award damages in negligence is set out in Mustapha at paragraph 3:

A successful action in negligence requires that the plaintiff demonstrate (1) that the defendant owed him a duty of care; (2) that the defendant’s behaviour breached the standard of care; (3) that the plaintiff sustained damage; and (4) that the damage was caused, in fact and in law, by the defendant’s breach.

These are very similar tests. Firstly, there must be a breach, whether of a contractual duty to pay disability benefits, or of a common law duty.

Secondly, there must be sufficient damage sustained to warrant compensation. In the tort claim in Mustapha, the court set stated that for psychological injury to be compensable, it must be “serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely, if sometimes reluctantly, accept” (para 9). Similarly, the court in Fidler stated it must be “of a degree sufficient to warrant compensation” (para 47). As noted in Saadati and Lau, this will not necessarily require expert medical evidence.

Finally, the damages must be caused in fact and in law by the breach. In Mustapha, the court found that the plaintiff’s psychological injuries must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach of its duty of care in order to meet the test for legal causation. The court in Fidler, applying the principles of Hadley, applied a test of whether damages arising would have been in the reasonable contemplation of the parties; this is quite similar to the reasonable foreseeability test in Mustapha.

Contract and Tort Law: Different Quantum Ranges

In Asselstine v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., 2005 BCCA 292 [Asselstine], the court reviewed previous awards for mental distress damages in disability insurance, and found they typically ranged between $10,000 – $20,000. The court upheld the trial judge’s award of $35,000, finding this amount to be at the upper end of the range for mental distress damages.

In contrast to Asselstine, tort cases in BC have provided a significantly wider range of damages for psychological injuries. In Hans v. Volvo Trucks North America Inc., 2016 BCSC 1155, the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident claim suffered debilitating and long-lasting PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, though he did not sustain any physical injuries. He was awarded $265,000 in his tort claim. In Saadati, the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident was awarded $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages for his tort claim for psychological injuries alone, despite having significant pre-existing chronic pain and minimal pre-accident income.

In claims for mental distress damages in disability insurance cases, there is the obvious hurdle that the plaintiff will have significant pre-existing conditions – enough to be disabled from working. However, even accounting for this, the courts in BC have awarded quite conservative damages.

In Gascoigne v Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company (Desjardins Insurance), 2019 BCSC 1241, aff’d on other grounds 2020 BCCA 316, the plaintiff initially developed a physical disability. The insurer denied her disability benefit payments. The plaintiff eventually developed depression and anxiety, largely “related to the financial pressures she and her family felt when the plaintiff stopped bringing home an income” (para 36). As a result of the denial of disability benefits, the plaintiff went from being happy and optimistic to withdrawn and distressed about finances. She became less able to cope with the demands of daily life. She separated from her husband and was expecting to divorce. Despite these significant impacts on her life, largely brought about by the insurer’s breach of contract, she was awarded only $30,000 for mental distress.

In Tanious v. The Empire Life Insurance Company, 2016 BCSC 110, aff’d on other grounds 2019 BCCA 329, leave to appeal to SCC refused, the plaintiff was denied disability benefit payments. She had significant disabling conditions, including multiple sclerosis, depression, and anxiety, and she had used illicit methamphetamines to try to cope with her disabling conditions. The insurer’s denial of her disability benefits made her living situation substantially worse. She could not afford good housing or food, and at times could not even have her soiled clothes washed. She had worked hard and paid for her insurance, and she felt she was being looked upon as a liar and a criminal when the insurer rejected her claim. She was awarded a mere $15,000 in mental distress damages.

There may be room to expand the range of mental distress damages in disability insurance claims. The court in Godwin v Desjardins Financial Security Investments Inc., 2018 BCSC 99 stated at paragraph 169:

Had the defendant been responsible for the entirety of the plaintiff’s psychiatric symptoms, an appropriate award may have been in an amount somewhat higher than the $70,000 to $80,000 contended for by the plaintiff. In the present case, the award must reflect the fact that Desjardins’ conduct only marginally aggravated Ms. Godwin’s illness. I award damages for mental distress in the amount of $30,000.

This judgment reflects that future awards for mental distress in disability insurance may come closer to those in personal injury torts. Additionally, in Greig v Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company, 2019 BCSC 1758 the court awarded $50,000 in mental distress damages, though the case is currently under appeal. The majority of cases, however, continue to assess damages within the range set out in Asselstine, despite acknowledging that this range is “modest” (C.P. v. RBC Life Insurance Company, 2015 BCCA 30 at para 65).

Conclusion

The gap in psychological damage awards between disability insurance claims and tort claims is worthy of further examination in the courts. Both areas of law aim to provide compensation for the same types of injury, and the courts have recognized that damages in contract and tort should be similar. To prevent arbitrary distinctions, previous case law setting out a “modest” range of damages in disability insurance cases should not be given undue weight. Instead, case law on psychological damages in both disability insurance and in tort should be considered of equal precedential value with respect to future awards of damages for mental distress.

Disability Claims for Self-Employed Professionals

Disability Claims for Self-Employed Professionals

disability claim for self-employed
If you are self-employed and have purchased a disability insurance policy, you have assumed that this policy serves as income replacement if you are unable to run your business for a period of time due to injury or illness.

Private disability insurance is commonly more expensive than group insurance, and generally, the type of coverage it provides is usually more valuable as it often provides benefits in the event you are unable to work in your regular occupation. Unfortunately, just because you have purchased an insurance policy, this does not necessarily mean that the insurer will not make it challenging for you to receive benefits after you have submitted a claim. Insurers often heavily scrutinize claims submitted by independent, self-employed individuals – this is because of the sometimes-large benefit amounts provided by some of these policies.

Know the Terms & Conditions of Your Insurance Policy

To protect your rights, it is integral that you understand the limitations and restrictions outlined in your disability insurance policy. The definitions of certain disabilities can change over time, so it is important to keep up to date and understand these changes that may apply to you.

Know Your Rights about Disability Claims

Once you have purchased your insurance policy, be sure you are aware that although you have coverage, this does not mean you should “rest easy.” In reality, what you are really buying are rights that you can enforce against your insurer if they fail to provide the protection that was sold to you.

Know the Strict Time Limitations

 Many people do not realize that there are strict limitations with regards to filing a lawsuit against insurers, and oftentimes they are missed. If you do miss a limitation period, the insurance company is not required to pay your claim, and therefore your right to sue them is null in void.

Here some common red flags you should be aware of:

  • The claim is taking an unusually long time to resolve
  • Irrelevant information is asked of you
  • A claim has been denied

Hire An Experienced Disability Lawyer

In many cases, filing a lawsuit is not necessary. The first step involves a demand letter, outlining any discrepancies, pointing out the facts, and the law – with the demand that an insurer complies with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Insurance companies are often fully aware when they are not in full compliance, and take advantage of policyholders because most people do not know the law in-depth, and are privy to any red flags before signing off on their policy.

Contact Tim Louis & Company

Insurance companies may deny legitimate disability claims, as the majority of individuals will give up instead of fighting for the monetary compensation they deserve. If you are self-employed and an insurance company has denied your long-term disability claim, the team at Tim Louis and Company is on your side and will fight in your corner.

For a free, no-obligation appointment, contact us today by calling 604-732-7678 or email timlouis@timlouislaw.com

Disability Insurance: Expansion of Special Costs

Disability Insurance: Expansion of Special Costs

disability insurance
 

Introduction

A recent BC Court of Appeal case, Tanious v. The Empire Life Insurance Company, 2019 BCCA 329 [Tanious], gives disability insurance claimants who take their insurers to court greater prospects of obtaining special costs against their insurer, even absent malicious conduct. However, the specific details of the case are very important. This article analyses Tanious with a view to determining the key requirements that will need to be met in future cases to obtain awards of special costs. Leave to appeal Tanious to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

Background

Ms. Tanious was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis shortly before beginning a new job. She nonetheless worked at that job for seven years before ceasing work and claiming disability benefits that she was entitled to through her employment. Following her diagnosis, she developed depression and anxiety, and about a year before ceasing work she started using illicit methamphetamines to cope with her deteriorating cognitive capabilities. The insurer, Empire Life, denied that she became disabled during her employment, and further argued that her substance use disentitled her to benefits. At trial, Mr. Justice N. Brown found that she was entitled to disability benefits, and further awarded her $15,000 for aggravated damages for mental distress, loss of peace of mind and of dignity as a person from Empire Life’s refusal to pay benefits.

At the subsequent costs hearing, Brown J. awarded special costs even though the plaintiff conceded that Empire Life did not commit any litigation misconduct. It is this award that was subject to appeal.

The Appeal of Special Costs

The costs scheme in British Columbia is statutory; Rule 14-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules sets out the framework for cost awards. It provides that the court may award special costs, but does not set out the circumstances in which they may be awarded. Generally, special costs are only awarded in cases where there has been litigation misconduct. However, there are exceptions, though these are rarely applied. The Tanious case is an example of one such exception.

Overarching Principles

In order to justify a special costs award, the Court of Appeal stated that it is insufficient to simply have a large discrepancy between taxable costs and actual legal costs. There must be some other “unusual feature” in the case, such as “special importance, difficulty or complexity associated with the litigation” (para. 54). The Court cited a handful of examples where special costs had been awarded despite the lack of evidence of misconduct, and explicitly reiterated that in these cases any award of special costs must be made on a principled basis.

Typically, the objectives of costs awards are to provide the winning party with some degree of indemnity for the costs it has incurred during the litigation. However, the Court of Appeal also recognized that costs awards “encourage settlement, deter frivolous actions or defences and sanction unreasonable conduct committed in the course of litigation” (para. 36). Significantly, the Court also indicated that in some instances, “costs may be awarded to enhance access to justice, mitigate severe inequality between litigants and encourage socially desirable conduct” (para. 36).

The Court cited the leading case of Asselstine v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., 2005 BCCA 465, which provides that in the context of these objectives, “the application of ordinary costs rules usually produces a just result,” but goes on to say that this does not mean “that the personal and financial circumstances of a litigant can never be relevant on a costs application” (para. 60). The Court acknowledged that such circumstances may come in to play in exceptional cases.

The Court went on to discuss other cases where special costs were “justified in the interests of justice” (para. 65). Given the circular nature of this proposal – that special costs awards are justified by justice – it is challenging to elucidate principled reasons for these awards when they are not related to reprehensible conduct. Instead, these cases are fact-specific and must be considered based on their own merits.

The Court included in its analysis two analogous cases out of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta where special costs were awarded: Hennessy v. Horse Racing Alberta, 2007 ABQB 178, where a judicial review was required to defend the appellant’s livelihood and restore his reputation; and Meleshko v. Alberta, 2013 ABQB 468, where the appellant sought judicial review to reinstate long-term disability benefits, and punitive damages were not available. As well, the Court cited FIC Real Estate Fund Ltd. v. Phoenix Land Ventures Ltd., 2016 ABCA 303 for the proposition that special costs could be awarded if success in the litigation would otherwise “amount to a strictly pyrrhic victory” (para. 65).

The final significant case referenced in the appeal was Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, wherein the test for awarding special costs was refined by the Supreme Court of Canada, stating that “the plaintiffs must show that it would not have been possible to pursue the litigation with private funding” (para. 63). In these instances, it is not just to ask the individual litigants or their counsel to bear the cost of pursuing the claim.

Factors in Tanious in support of special costs

On its face, the trial judge in Tanious made the decision to award special costs on the basis of very few factors, none of which are unusual in a long term disability insurance case: the purpose of the insurance contract is to provide subsistence level income, and when the insurer failed to pay these benefits, the plaintiff had to bring a lawsuit, which cost money. However, the Court of Appeal recognized that when the trial judge’s reasons were read as a whole, it was apparent that he also considered “the nature of the case, including its unique characteristics and related litigation challenges, complexities and costs, together with Ms. Tanious’ personal and financial circumstances and her need for counsel as established by the evidence” (para. 21).

The particular litigation challenges of this case included several factors that added to the effort required by counsel. Ms. Tanious was a difficult client to represent. She could not meet at counsel’s office; counsel had to drive to her. Similarly, she could not review documents to prepare for an examination for discovery as it was too stressful, and she likely would not be able to remember what she had reviewed. Additionally, she attended hospital 33 times over the course of the case, and often called her counsel from hospital to ask for help with various other issues. Ms. Tanious attempted suicide more than once as her disease progressed; if she had died, her claim for benefits would have ended. In preparing for this case, it was difficult for counsel to predict what Ms. Tanious would say at trial.

Though the insurer did not commit misconduct, it could have acted better. The trial judge noted that the insurer made only a cursory response to Ms. Tanious’ initial application for disability benefits, but once in litigation, mounted a vigorous defence. In combination with Ms. Tanious’ poor mental health and declining cognitive abilities, the actions taken by the insurer necessitated that she obtain legal representation in order to pursue the benefits to which she was entitled.

Notably, Ms. Tanious had separate counsel for the costs hearing. This was perhaps because her original counsel had to testify at the hearing via affidavit as to the many special circumstances in Ms. Tanious’ case; s. 5.2-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct precludes counsel from testifying to controversial matters. Though it was not mentioned by the Court, as a practical matter, this ethical rule adds to the challenges of obtaining special costs.

Future Implications

The courts now recognize that in matters of insurance disputes and also in other exceptional situations, many people do not have access to justice unless they are able to retain counsel. Access to justice is recognized as being one of the policy objectives of the courts that thus far is not adequately being met (para. 81). As the consequences of these shortcomings become clearer, it may be possible to seek special costs as a means of ensuring adequate access to justice for members of otherwise underrepresented and vulnerable populations.

It can be difficult to make a financially viable practice taking long term disability cases to trial. While aggravated damages are sometimes awarded, they are typically small awards that are woefully insufficient in comparison to the costs of litigation. Punitive damages require misconduct on the part of the insurer. The risk of a special cost award, absent litigation misconduct, provides the plaintiff with more leverage in negotiations with an insurer, and may allow a plaintiff to recuperate the full benefits to which they are entitled, while also appropriately compensating their counsel.

Hit and Run Crashes: What You Should Know

A hit and run can be one of the most frustrating experiences for a driver. Whether the driver who causes a collision fails to stop, or flees the scene of a crash without providing their information, a hit and run is a serious offence.

Hit and run Crashes

What is a Hit and Run?

A hit and run is when an unidentified driver flees the scene after damaging a vehicle/property, and/or injures a pedestrian. When filing a hit and run claim, a judge or jury decides whether or not you made “all reasonable efforts” to confirm the identity of the unknown driver and owner – that is if ICBC decides that you did not take these measures. If you are involved in a hit and run, below are some of the steps you should take to help ensure you meet the requirements:

(Note: you should seek legal advice immediately in the case of a hit and run accident).

Steps To Making a Hit and Run Claim

Contact the police immediately and identify the vehicle/driver if possible

  • police

    Try your best to identify the other vehicle and if possible, the other driver. If you can, jot down the vehicle’s license plate number – this will assist authorities with the investigation. The more information you can collect the better such as the colour, make and model of the vehicle, and what direction the car was heading.

If you Have Been Injured, Seek Medical Attention Immediately

  • If you have been injured, seek a medical professional right away to get checked out.

Observe and Photograph the scene of the Crash

  • Look around the scene for any skid marks or any debris left behind from the vehicle that caused the crash. Take measurements of any skid marks on the pavement and take clear photographs of the crash location — as these details can be used as evidence. Only collect any evidence if police have not done so – or contact your lawyer to find out if an accident reconstruction engineer should be assigned.

Report the Claim to ICBC

Speak to Businesses and Residents in the Area Surrounding the Crash

  • Speak with any residences or businesses that are close to the scene of the hit and run crash that may have witnessed the incident and in turn may be able to note the make and model or even the colour of the vehicle, which can assist the investigation.

witnesses

Spread the Word to Locate Witnesses

  • Near the scene of the crash, put up notices clearly outlining the date and time of the incident, along with any other details that would be useful for potential witnesses. Also submit ads to online community classifieds, forums and newspapers and the best way for them to contact you.

Follow Up with Police

  • Follow up with police on a regular basis for the latest details on the investigation and take notes along the way.

How Much Am I Covered?

  • Residents in British Columbia are covered for up to $200,000 for any injuries, property damage or death resulting from a hit and run.
  • Non BC residents are also covered – however, depending on where they live limitations may vary.

What Do I have to Pay?

  • For hit and run damage to your vehicle or property, ICBC requires drivers pay a $750 deductible, or your ICBC collision deductible, whichever is less.
  • If you suffer from an injury resulting in a hit and run crash, there is no ICBC deductible and your insurance premium will not be affected.

Contact An Experienced, Trusted Personal Injury Lawyer

Tim Louis and his compassionate and talented legal team can give you the solid, trusted advice you need and can deal with ICBC on your behalf. If you or your loved one has been injured in a hit and run motor vehicle collision in Metro Vancouver and would like to consult with our legal team who will do everything they possibly can to get you the personal injury settlement you deserve, contact us today for a free consultation at 604-732-7678 or email timlouis@timlouislaw.com

sources:
https://www.icbc.com/claims/repair-replace/Pages/Hit-and-run.aspx

Repetitive Strain Injuries: What You Need to Know

When we think about workplace injuries, we often think about slip-and-fall accidents, injuries resulting from falling objects or the various back and neck strains that come with the territory within many workplaces. However, some work-related accidents are often far less dramatic.

A number of injuries occur over time, through constant repetition of daily tasks, which negatively impact the body causing strain to sensitive joints and muscle groups. These repetitive strain injuries, or RSI, can have a long-lasting effect on our health and daily life.

Injuries Resulting From Repetitive Motion

A Repetitive Strain Injury, whether it is temporary or permanent, will need rest or a change in daily habit that provides time to heal. It is crucial to see a medical professional right away to prevent any further damage to the muscles, ligaments, nerves or tendons through continuous, repetitive motion.

Most Common Repetitive Strain Injuries

typingRepetitive Strain Injuries (RSI) can result from a buildup of damage to muscles, tendons, and nerves from repetitive motion or strain on specific parts of the body. Repetitive Strain Injuries are quite common and may be caused by a variety of common work activities, including:

  • Using a computer mouse or trackpad
  • Excessive typing (data entry)
  • Swiping items at a supermarket checkout/cash register use
  • Grasping and manipulating tools
  • Working in an assembly line environment
  • Training for sports or other athletic activities

Some commonly diagnosed Repetitive Strain Injuries are:

  • Tendonitis (inflammation of the tendon)
  • Pertendonitis (inflammation of the sheath of a tendon)
  • Trigger finger (difficulty bending or straightening any of the fingers which is caused by inflammation and thickening of the tendon)
  • Tenosynovitis (inflammation of the fluid-filled sheath that surrounds a tendon causing joint pain and stiffness)
  • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (numbness, tingling and pain in the hand or arm resulting from compression of the median nerve which is squeezed as it travels through the wrist
  • Epicondylitis (inflammation of tendons surrounding an epicondyle)
  • Bursitis (inflammation of the bursa sac which is common around the elbow, hips, knees and shoulder)

Repetitive Strain Injuries

What Are the Symptoms?

There are many possible causes of repetitive strain injuries and a wide range of symptoms that result. Tenderness or pain the affected muscle or joints are common, a throbbing or pulsating sensation in the affected area and or tingling in the hands or arms. Any other symptoms will depend on which part of the body is affected.

It’s important that you visit a medical professional for a proper diagnosis as soon as you experience symptoms to prevent any further damage over time.

Repetitive Strain Injury Prevention

The primary ways in which you can reduce the risk is to stop or limit the intensity of the activity. If the activity cannot be stopped, tips for reducing the risk may include:

Taking breaks: Taking regular breaks from any repetitive task may help reduce the strain on your body.

Stand up: Standing up, stretching and frequently moving your limbs may reduce the risk. Stretch your back, arms, fingers and legs regularly.

Vision break: Rest your eye muscles by looking up and staring for a moment at objects in the distance or simply looking around the room. The key is to give your eyes a regular break from screen time.

exerciseOverall health: Eat healthy and get regular exercise to keep your body as resilient as possible, and try to avoid smoking, as this reduces blood flow and oxygen in the body.

Posture: Try to keep yourself from slouching. Ensure your desk, chair and computer screen are aligned as much as you can in an ergonomic setting.

Wrists: Avoid bending or overextending your wrists, and keep the arms, wrists and fingers aligned when typing as much as possible.

Typing: Try to touch type as much as possible and avoid hitting your keys too hard.

Keyboard Shortcuts: Try to use keyboard shortcuts whenever possible, as this can reduce the amount of typing needed.

Mouse or Track-pad: Do not grip too tight or press too hard, and try to slow your speed in order to reduce muscle tension in your hand and wrist.

Temperature: Keep an eye on the temperature of your work area and regulate where necessary.

Phone Use: If you need to use a phone while working, try wearing a headset as this will keep you from needed to grip the phone for long periods or needing to clamp the phone between your head and shoulder.

You can trust Tim Louis & Company to ensure the best possible outcome for your personal injury case

These common RSI injuries can have a lasting impact on one’s health and quality of life. If you or a loved one has experienced a serious injury while on the job, contact Tim Louis and his compassionate and experienced legal team today by calling 604-732-7678 or email timlouis@timlouislaw.com.

Sources:
https://www.enjuris.com/workplace-injury/repetitive-strain-injuries-work.html

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17424-repetitive-stress-injury

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/overuse-injury/art-20045875

Scroll to top