A BC man who claimed $1 million in damages after a car accident disrupted his sex life has been dismissed by a court after it was discovered he had ordered Viagra from a doctor a year before the incident.

right decisionissued by the BC Civil Settlement Tribunal on October 29, a man identified as JU was absent from work due to injuries resulting from a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

ICBC paid her $1,794.07 in income replacement benefits. But the man claimed that the insurance company did not pay him benefits for the first 10 days after the accident. He claimed an additional $3,352.60.

JU also claimed that his sex life was destroyed by the injuries from the accident, a condition that entitled him to $1 million in damages for permanent impairment.

The man claimed that because of his chronic back pain, he was unable to have sex with his wife and this affected his self-esteem. He said he consulted a registered psychologist to deal with his sexual dysfunction.

ICBC disputed those claims, saying it had properly determined the man’s income and benefits on the basis Insurance (Vehicles) Law. and associated regulations. The corporation said it paid JU the amount he was entitled to and did not prove the sex life claim.

The man was using Viagra before the accident

In her decision, tribunal member Sarah Orr found that JU did not explain how it arrived at the $1 million figure. She also said JU failed to prove that any sexual dysfunction was caused by the accident.

Medical records submitted as evidence showed that the man had requested Viagra from his doctor more than a year before the accident in July 2020 and that he had mentioned episodes of erectile dysfunction in September 2020.

Orr said records show JU’s doctor diagnosed him with chronic neck and back pain from an unrelated accident in 2016 and that that triggered his sexual dysfunction.

She said there is also a March 22, 2023 note in the psychologist’s clinical records indicating that JU’s doctor prescribed medication for sexual dysfunction.

Orr found that the man did not provide “any documentary evidence to support his claim” and did not establish that he was entitled to other benefits.

She dismissed the case.