Client Awarded $500,000 at Arbitration After ICBC Argued She Only Deserved $30,000

Mussio Goodman secured nearly $500,000 for our client at arbitration, despite ICBC’s argument for a mere $30,000 award.

Our client, who had recently moved to Canada from the UK, was rear-ended by a distracted driver who didn’t notice traffic slowing down for an emergency vehicle. The accident was traumatic, especially because our client’s young daughter was in the car and sustained injuries of her own. Our client suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, along with neck and back injuries, and was later diagnosed with thoracic outlet syndrome—a condition causing nerve compression near the collarbone, resulting in weakness, numbness, and tingling.

Before moving to Canada, our client had worked as a dental assistant and aspired to become a dental hygienist, a career move that would have significantly increased her income and ability to provide for her young family. However, the accident, particularly the thoracic outlet syndrome, reduced fine motor skills needed to pursue a dental hygiene career as she could no longer safely treat patients. Despite this setback, our client showed resilience, retraining as a legal assistant. She secured a position at a national law firm before transferring to the Department of Justice. Though she found little fulfillment in this work, she persevered to support her family.

ICBC employed aggressive tactics during the arbitration, presenting hours of invasive surveillance footage, scrutinizing minor discrepancies between her resume and actual experience, and calling former coworkers who barely knew her to testify. Despite medical experts—including those hired by ICBC—largely agreeing on the severity and nature of her injuries, ICBC suggested during the arbitration that our client was uninjured and entirely healthy, reducing her to tears.

While the arbitrator was left with the difficult task of assessing various probabilities of our client being accepted into hygiene school and securing a position, he was unmoved by much of ICBC’s argument. The outcome speaks for itself: our client received an award over 16 times higher than what ICBC suggested in closing arguments.