Does a plaintiff have to prove that treatment for chronic pain is rehabilitative?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Pang v Burns, 2021 BCSC 2430 (CanLII):

The plaintiff cites Gignac v. Rozylo, 2011 BCSC 237, for the proposition that treatment for chronic pain is not rehabilitative and, therefore, should not be deductible under s. 88(2). Indeed, at para. 28, Wilson J. made this point, with reference to the definition of “rehabilitation”:

Other Questions


What is the burden of proving that a plaintiff’s failure to pursue recommended medical treatment contributed to their loss? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the burden on a defendant to prove that a plaintiff has not followed a recommended course of medical treatment? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the burden of proving that a plaintiff's failure to follow the advice of doctors with respect to treatment is reasonable or unreasonable? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that two accidents caused or materially contributed to her chronic pain syndrome? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that they have not missed work due to chronic pain? (British Columbia, Canada)
How does a plaintiff have to prove an evidentiary link between her pain symptoms and the recommended treatment and care? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to mitigate by refusing to undergo medical treatment? (British Columbia, Canada)
What must a plaintiff prove to establish negligence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to income loss? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of future income loss? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.