In Lees v. Compton et al., the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and brought an ICBC claim for many heads of damages, including pain and suffering, income loss, future income loss, out of pocket expenses, and the cost of future care. Much of the case hinged upon the Plaintiff‘s subjective reports of pain and how her injuries impacted her life. Although the Court would award damages for pain and suffering, it would not be to the extent that the Plaintiff claimed, with the Court holding that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff did not affect her as much as she had claimed. In arriving at its’ conclusion, the Court used admissions made by the Plaintiff in various clinical records.
 The more difficult question is the impact that these injuries have had on the plaintiff’s life. The plaintiff suggests that the injuries have had a significant impact on her life. She says she has been forced to give up sports and is no longer capable of holding down a part-time job. The plaintiff does acknowledge that her long time goal of being a university professor remains intact but submits that her injuries will in the future likely impact on her ability to fulfill the functions of that employment.
 The excerpts in the clinical records suggest that the plaintiff’s limitations are not as great as she claims. The records clearly put in question certain of the plaintiff’s evidence and raise issues as to her credibility. The records indicate that the plaintiff has misled the Court with respect to playing field hockey subsequent to the accident, running subsequent to the accident, and the impact of the accident on her study habits.
 While I acknowledge the comments of N. Smith J. in Edmundson that clinical records must be viewed with caution, in this case there are eight separate notes that are in issue. With regard to each note, the plaintiff claims the physiotherapist is wrong and she never gave the information in question because the information sets out activities in which she did not participate and indeed could not participate because of her injuries.
 On the evidence before me I cannot disregard the physiotherapist’s notes. While it is possible that a clinical note may be in error it is highly improbable that there would be eight such errors. There is also little evidence that contradicts the notes. As noted earlier, other than Ms. Welch, the plaintiff did not call any of her contemporaries as witnesses and Ms. Welsh’s evidence was limited to her experience on one field hockey team.