Whiplash Injury Found Non-Minor by Civil Resolution Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Civil Resolution Tribunal decided that the claimant's whiplash injury and related symptoms are not minor injuries. The Tribunal considered expert reports and the claimant's ongoing symptoms to determine that the injuries significantly affected her ability to work as a hairstylist.
⚖️ Legal holding
Injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident are not minor if they cause a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of one's employment.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The applicant's whiplash associated disorder (WAD) injury caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a hairstylist.
- Three expert reports were reasonably necessary and proportionate to the applicant’s claim to establish the severity of her injuries.
- The applicant's chronic pain in her neck, back, and shoulders, along with associated headaches and mood disorder, impaired her ability to function well at work.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent argued that the applicant's injuries are minor and that she had not proven she is substantially unable to do the essential tasks of her employment.
- The respondent claimed that the applicant had not sought any psychiatric consultations through her medical services plan for an alleged mood disorder in the six years since the accident.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant's injuries from a car accident were minor or not, affecting insurance claims and compensation.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant's injuries were not minor because they substantially impacted her ability to work as a hairstylist, based on expert reports and ongoing symptoms.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's ongoing symptoms and the impact on her ability to work, supported by expert reports.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to claim non-minor injury status if their symptoms persist and affect their ability to work.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Expert reports from physiatrists and a functional assessment were crucial in supporting the claimant's case.