Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Damages stemmed from a rear-end motor vehicle accident with admitted liability and causation.

• Core dispute centered on the plaintiff’s claimed loss of past and future earning capacity as an ophthalmologist.

• Plaintiff’s vocational limitations and modifications post-accident were supported by subjective and expert testimony.

• Defense challenged the plaintiff’s estimated economic losses, citing high current income and lack of evidence for greater lost productivity.

• Credibility and reliability of medical and occupational expert opinions were key to assessing damages.

• A 5% deduction was applied for failure to mitigate through recommended active rehabilitation.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and the accident

Kathryn Martha Clapson, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 14, 2018. She was stopped at a red light in Vancouver when her vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, Erin Nicole Knight, who was driving a Mercedes-Benz. At the time, Ms. Clapson was in her fourth year of an ophthalmology residency program at the University of British Columbia.

The defendant admitted liability and causation for the injuries, narrowing the trial to an assessment of damages. Ms. Clapson claimed that the accident significantly impaired her physical capacity, particularly her ability to maintain static neck postures essential to her ophthalmology practice. This, she argued, affected her earning potential and lifestyle.

Plaintiff’s position and evidence

Ms. Clapson alleged that her injuries, specifically chronic neck and upper back pain, led to long-term impacts on her ability to perform surgical procedures, especially strabismus and cataract surgeries that require fixed head positions. She introduced medical and vocational evidence asserting her ability to work had been reduced to between 50–80% of her expected capacity. Her expert, Dr. Ross Davidson, diagnosed persistent musculoskeletal pain and provided a guarded prognosis unless she pursued ongoing rehabilitation. An occupational therapist added that her postural limitations were incompatible with a full surgical workload.

Economist evidence presented by Mr. Coleman estimated a future loss of earning capacity exceeding $10 million, based on reduced productivity, planned surgical volumes, and career trajectory. The plaintiff also claimed significant non-pecuniary damages, cost of future care, and special damages, seeking a total of $12.7 million.

Defense arguments and evidence

The defense agreed the accident caused injury but strongly disputed the quantum of loss. Their medical expert, Dr. William Craig, concurred with the diagnosis of soft tissue injury but predicted improvement with further treatment. The defense contended the plaintiff had maintained a thriving medical practice, earning above the 80th percentile for ophthalmologists in British Columbia, even with maternity leaves. They argued her income projections were speculative and unsupported by actual clinical or billing data. Their economist, Mr. Steigervald, highlighted discrepancies between claimed lost earnings and actual revenues.

The defense also challenged the reliability of the plaintiff’s assumptions about surgical throughput and available resources, pointing to staffing limitations and system-wide constraints.

Findings on credibility and mitigation

Justice LeBlanc found the plaintiff credible regarding her injury symptoms and the resulting need to modify her practice. However, the court was less persuaded by her subjective claims about what she could have achieved but for the accident, noting external factors like staffing shortages and family responsibilities would have affected her productivity regardless.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not undertaking the recommended active rehabilitation program, applying a 5% deduction on her earnings-based damages.

Outcome and damages awarded

Justice LeBlanc awarded the plaintiff a total of $1,606,463.94, broken down as follows:

• Non-pecuniary damages: $150,000

• Past loss of earning capacity: $100,000

• Future loss of earning capacity: $1,375,000

• Cost of future care: $50,000

• Special damages: $5,213.94

• Mitigation discount (5%): -$73,750

While recognizing the real impacts of the injury, the court substantially reduced the plaintiff’s claim from over $12 million to a more measured figure based on concrete evidence and realistic assumptions about future work and earnings.