In Datoc v. Raj, the Plaintiff was injured in t-bone collision when struck by the Defendant. Both sides denied liability, claiming they each had a green light. The Plaintiff pursued an ICBC claim for several heads of damages, including pain and suffering, wage loss, and diminished earning capacity. The Court eventually ruled in favor of the Plaintiff with respect to liability, however had some harsh words for the Plaintiff with respect to the number of his doctor visits, which totaled 128, which the Court found unnecessary.
 Up to June 2012, the plaintiff saw Dr. Irene Chan, a general practitioner, 128 times for his injuries. From July 8, 2008 to June 2012, the complaints he made to her were virtually the same on each occasion. Dr. Chen was not called as an expert witness but testified simply with respect to some of the observations she made.
 It is difficult to know what to make of the fact that the plaintiff attended his general practitioner for 128 visits and appears to have repeated his symptoms almost without change on each visit. He explained in his testimony that he went to his doctor to report changes in his condition; however his doctor noted each of his attendances with the plaintiff reporting no changes. The evidence left me with the impression that the plaintiff was creating a record of his injuries for his claim as there appears to be no reasonable medical justification for the number of attendances before his family doctor. Rather than supporting his credibility, this evidence of the numerous attendances on his family doctor left me with the opposite impression.