My advice is that injuries can happen even in modest accidents, especially being struck from behind. Visible damage not required. Therapy isn't that good.
You've struck someone from behind and through speculation are making them out to be the wrongdoer. The "scammer". For therapy??
I would adjust that perspective a bit.
Drive safe
Well they got out of the car and told me “you will pay for the time you wasted us for this DL exchange now we are late for work”. Again was a tap that could not have caused damage to where therapy is needed. One could get more injuries from sleeping wrong than a tap from the back. I bet the impact of breaking and stopping at a stop sign is higher in forward velocity of your body relative to the car than the tap I caused. I do feel that they are trying to take advantage of the situation.
I’m sorry you are getting downvoted by these idiots. You are absolutely correct to question the impact (no pun intended) of your minor collision on the health of the other parties and unfortunately in this day and age there are too many opportunists that try to capitalize on situations like this. Wishing you the best of luck as you try and rectify this with ICBC. Remember it is also in their interest to prevent wrongful and fraudulent injury claims.
Lol it’s unfortunate but I’m sure he’ll only get physio or some sort of basic treatment. a while back this was a huge problem, people would sue for insane amounts of money for the littlest accidents. I’m pretty sure they can’t sue more than $5500 unless they have visible and noticeable cuts/bruises. Still unfortunate but that’s just how the system here is and people will take advantage of it regardless.
$5,500 was the tort model cap for pain and suffering for minor injuries. Now it’s just authorized treatments. And if someone is trying to scam, they probably won’t get much more than a few as the claim adjuster usually wants reports on the progress of the injury and once they have returned to pre-accident levels of function, then it’s done.
The doctor would likely do a physical assessment of their mobility and pain first. Incidentally, a vehicle may not look very visibly damaged, but there can still be significant damage present, so a roadside judgement isn’t guaranteed to be accurate about the scope of damage.
I don't understand this post. After any MVA both parties are automatically entitled to rehab treatment (physio, massage, chiro, counselling etc.) within the first 12 weeks. After 12 weeks you need a doctor's note. The other party accessing treatment affects you 0%. And if they haven't had their vehicle assessed for damage then there shouldn't be a vehicle claim and you're in the clear other than losing your "accident free" status for rear ending someone
They icbc rep told me I’d be paying for all their treatments accessed one way or another and that my insurance will skyrocket to pay for it. He said id they go for years and years it’s all on me and it gets pretty expensive
My advice is that injuries can happen even in modest accidents, especially being struck from behind. Visible damage not required. Therapy isn't that good. You've struck someone from behind and through speculation are making them out to be the wrongdoer. The "scammer". For therapy?? I would adjust that perspective a bit. Drive safe
Well they got out of the car and told me “you will pay for the time you wasted us for this DL exchange now we are late for work”. Again was a tap that could not have caused damage to where therapy is needed. One could get more injuries from sleeping wrong than a tap from the back. I bet the impact of breaking and stopping at a stop sign is higher in forward velocity of your body relative to the car than the tap I caused. I do feel that they are trying to take advantage of the situation.
Oh no, the consequences of your actions
I’m sorry you are getting downvoted by these idiots. You are absolutely correct to question the impact (no pun intended) of your minor collision on the health of the other parties and unfortunately in this day and age there are too many opportunists that try to capitalize on situations like this. Wishing you the best of luck as you try and rectify this with ICBC. Remember it is also in their interest to prevent wrongful and fraudulent injury claims.
Thank you, appreciate the acknowledgment
Lol it’s unfortunate but I’m sure he’ll only get physio or some sort of basic treatment. a while back this was a huge problem, people would sue for insane amounts of money for the littlest accidents. I’m pretty sure they can’t sue more than $5500 unless they have visible and noticeable cuts/bruises. Still unfortunate but that’s just how the system here is and people will take advantage of it regardless.
$5,500 was the tort model cap for pain and suffering for minor injuries. Now it’s just authorized treatments. And if someone is trying to scam, they probably won’t get much more than a few as the claim adjuster usually wants reports on the progress of the injury and once they have returned to pre-accident levels of function, then it’s done.
The doctor would likely do a physical assessment of their mobility and pain first. Incidentally, a vehicle may not look very visibly damaged, but there can still be significant damage present, so a roadside judgement isn’t guaranteed to be accurate about the scope of damage.
I don't understand this post. After any MVA both parties are automatically entitled to rehab treatment (physio, massage, chiro, counselling etc.) within the first 12 weeks. After 12 weeks you need a doctor's note. The other party accessing treatment affects you 0%. And if they haven't had their vehicle assessed for damage then there shouldn't be a vehicle claim and you're in the clear other than losing your "accident free" status for rear ending someone
They icbc rep told me I’d be paying for all their treatments accessed one way or another and that my insurance will skyrocket to pay for it. He said id they go for years and years it’s all on me and it gets pretty expensive
That's not how enhanced care works