Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/tag/shoulder-injury
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:54:25+00:00

Document:
Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding a plaintiff just over $137,000 in damages as a result of a BC car crash.
ICBC admitted fault on behalf of the driver focusing the trial on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.
I find that the plaintiff sustained injuries to his neck, left shoulder and left arm as a result of the Accident. While most of the injuries have resolved, the plaintiff continues to suffer pain and limitations with respect to his left shoulder. Various areas of the left shoulder have been implicated, including the AC joint, rotator cuff, and coracoid process. Although there was great confusion in the medical evidence about the mechanics of the injury to the plaintiff’s shoulder, whatever the mechanism of the injury, and in light of my finding that there was no intervening event, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the ongoing symptoms in the plaintiff’s left shoulder were caused by the April 2004 Accident.
… the amount of an award for non-pecuniary damage should not depend alone upon the seriousness of the injury but upon its ability to ameliorate the condition of the victim considering his or her particular situation. … An award will vary in each case ‘to meet the specific circumstances of the individual case’.
 The Accident has impacted the plaintiff’s life profoundly. In the months immediately following the Accident, the plaintiff experienced flashbacks, intense pain and had difficulty sleeping. After the acute pain passed, the plaintiff continued to suffer from increases in pain when working and difficulty sleeping. To try to redress this, he underwent surgery, which was frightening for him, and required further rehabilitation. However, in the long run the surgery was not successful, his pain continued, and his prognosis for recovery is not good.
 Aside from pain, the plaintiff has experienced a loss of enjoyment of life. The plaintiff does not travel because it is difficult to carry or manage his luggage, he no longer engages in many of his recreational activities, he has experienced a great deal of emotional difficulty and he continues to restrict situations in which he may find himself a passenger in another vehicle.
166] In light of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the Accident and the negative prognoses contained in the medical evidence, I find the plaintiff is entitled to an award of $75,000 for general damages.
You can click here to access my archived summary of other recent BC Claims dealing with shoulder injuries.
As I’ve previously written, video surveillance in and of itself does not harm a persons ICBC claim, being caught in a lie does. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this fact.
In today’s case (Fata v. Heinonen) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 BC collision. Fault was admitted. The Plaintiff suffered several injuries including “an obvious impingement syndrome at the shoulder“. The Defendant disputed the severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries at trial. Instead of relying on independent medical evidence, the Defendant sought to harm the Plaintiff’s case by relying on video surveillance which was taken the year following the collision.
The Court went on to award the Plaintiff $45,000 in non-pecuniary damages for his soft tissue injuries and shoulder impingement.
This case is also worth also worth reviewing for the Court’s explanation of the “Golden Years” doctrine.
In personal injury claims BC Courts recognize that no two cases are exactly alike and the assessment of non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) depends on the unique facts of any given case.
 On the facts of this case, where Mr. Fata has suffered a loss of some enjoyment of life in every aspect of his life, I conclude that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $45,000.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, considering the value of chronic soft tissue injuries following a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Harris v. Zabaras) the Plaintiff was injured in a pretty forceful rear-end collision involving two pick up trucks. Fault for the crash was admitted leaving the Court to focus on the extent and value of injuries and loss.
 When characterizing the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries for the purposes of non-pecuniary damages, I do not think it is helpful to attempt to choose between the labels of “mild” and “mild to moderate” that have been offered by two of the medical witnesses. At the end of the day, what is important is the pain the plaintiff experiences as a result of the injuries and how that impacts his life.
 In that regard, while there has been some reduction in the frequency of the plaintiff’s headaches, he remains subject to neck and left arm pain whenever he undertakes strenuous physical activity. As Dr. Travlos put it, “he will generally pay the consequences for doing such activities”.
 The extent of his resulting disability is that he must either avoid strenuous physical activity or divide it into more manageable chunks that will not provoke symptoms. This compromises his ability to engage fully in the recreational building or maintenance activities that have previously been a source of pleasure to him and in turn has led to a level of depression in the face of his more limited prospects.
 Even if he is able to relieve his symptoms somewhat through the steps that have been recommended to him, the consensus of medical opinion is that they will persist.
 However I note that the plaintiff speaks of being unable for the most part to engage in these activities any longer whereas Dr. Travlos has encouraged him to continue to be as active as possible, bearing in mind that his capacity for working continuously will be reduced and that he will experience pain as a result.
 This relates to Dr. Devonshire’s observation that the plaintiff may be over-rating his pain, because he has not required any “significant analgesia” ( by which I think she means prescription- level painkillers) to control it.
 While I am satisfied that the physical symptoms that the plaintiff, his wife and the Grieves have described are genuine, he nevertheless appears to view them as imposing somewhat greater limitations on his physical activities than may actually be the case.
 Taking into account all of the circumstances and the authorities, I think that an award of $50,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in this case. In arriving at this amount I am mindful of the fact that the award in Hanna, when adjusted to current dollars, falls within a similar range, even though it involved a brachial plexus injury. The effect on the plaintiff in that case however, was quite similar to the plaintiff’s situation, so I do not think that diagnosis in itself limits its applicability.
The Plaintiff’s damages were reduced by 10% for failing to take some steps which could have improved his accident related symptoms. The court’s discussion of ‘failure to mitigate’ set out at paragraphs 80-88 of the reasons for judgement are worth reviewing for a quick introduction to this area of personal injury law.
On Friday two more cases were released by the BC Supreme Court dealing with non-pecuniary damages which I summarize below to add to this Pain and Suffering database.
The first case (Macki v. Gruber) dealt with a bus accident. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a Greyhound bus in Duncan, BC. Liability was contested but the Greyhound bus driver was found 100% at fault for the accident. Paragraphs 1-60 of the case deal with the issue of fault and are worth reviewing for Mr. Justice Metzger’s discussion of credibility. In finding the Defendant at fault the Court found that he was “careless” and that he “lied” and his evidence was rejected in all areas that it was in “conflict with the testimony of any other witness“.
 I find the chronic pain has made Ms. Mackie reclusive and morose. She has gone from a “bubbly, fun-loving, outgoing, social, interesting” person, to someone who is anti-social, with bouts of depression and sadness. From the evidence of the plaintiff and Ms. Garnett, I find that the plaintiff defines herself as a very hardworking woman, but that the chronic pain prevents her exhibiting her previous commitment to work.
 This loss of enjoyment of life and identity is given considerable weight.
 I am satisfied the plaintiff is resilient and stoic by nature, and I do not doubt the extent of her pain and suffering. She has endured a regime of injections in order to retain some of her employment capacity. Plaintiffs are not to receive a lesser damage award because of their stoicism.
 I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s injuries and ongoing limitations are more like those cited in the plaintiff’s authorities and therefore I award her $75,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
In the second case released on Friday (Dhillon v. Ashton) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 separate rear-end collisions. Both claims were heard at the same time and fault was admitted leaving the court to deal with the sole issue of damages.
Madam Justice Ross found that the Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries in each of the 2 accidents. She awarded non-pecuniary damages in total of $25,000 for both collisions.
 I find that Mr. Dhillon suffered soft tissue injury to his neck, right shoulder and low back in the First MVA. He suffered from headaches arising from this injury, but these resolved in a relatively short period of time. The injury to the right shoulder had essentially resolved by mid-May 2005. I find, consistent with Dr. Sandhu’s report that Mr. Dhillon was unable to work as a result of his injuries from the time of the First MVA to mid-May 2005 and then continued to suffer partial disability at work until July 2005. By July 2005 he was able to return to work without limitation. I find that his injuries from the First MVA were essentially resolved by October 2005, except for intermittent pain, consistent with Dr. Sandhu’s report. From October 2005 until the time of the First Workplace Accident, Mr. Dhillon required the use of pain medication for low back pain that was the consequence of both his prior condition and lingering consequences of the First MVA.
 In the result, I find that Mr. Dhillon suffered mild to moderate soft tissue injury from the First MVA with the symptoms most significant in the first three months following the injury; with some ongoing problems for the next five months and intermittent pain thereafter. I find the appropriate amount for non-pecuniary damages for the First MVA to be $15,000.00.
 I find that Mr. Dhillon suffered soft tissue injuries in the Second MVA that resulted in an exacerbation of his injuries to his neck, shoulder, and low back. He had returned to work following the Second Workplace Accident before the Second MVA, but was not able to work after this accident. He required physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment and pain medication for both the continuing injuries from the Workplace Accidents, an apparent recurrence or continuation of the right side back problem first noted in 2000, and the Second MVA. Mr. Dhillon was able to return to work part-time in November 2006 and full-time in January 2007. He requires some accommodation from his employer in terms of his duties. He continues to experience pain and requires medication to control his pain. I find that the Second MVA plays some role, albeit a minimal one, in Mr. Dhillon’s continuing symptoms, the other more significant contributors being the original complaint of low back pain, and the two Workplace Accidents.
Reasons for judgement were released today (Romanchych v. Vallianatos) by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, awarding just over $132,000 in total damages to a Plaintiff injured in a 2006 BC Motor Vehicle Collision.
The collision was a rear-ender on the Alex Fraser Bridge in Delta, BC. The crash was forceful enough to write off the 24 year old Plaintiff’s vehicle.
I find on the totality of the evidence that the accident caused the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder injuries with associated headaches and jaw pain. While her symptoms improved over time, they have not resolved. She currently suffers chronic neck and shoulder pain. She can manage her pain level if she avoids aggravating her injuries by limiting her activities. The plaintiff is also vulnerable to future episodes of jaw pain. I find in favour of the plaintiff’s submission, except for small adjustments to the quantum of damages claimed.
 On the whole, the expert opinions support a strong inference that the plaintiff’s injuries are chronic and that they will continue to affect her permanently. Given that she must limit her activities to minimize and manage her pain, the evidence shows that it is probable that her pain and resulting limitations will continue indefinitely.
 I find on the totality of the evidence that the accident caused the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder injuries with associated headaches and jaw pain. While her symptoms have improved over time, they have not resolved.
 I also find that the jaw symptoms which arose in August 2007 were indeed caused by the accident of July 4, 2006. I also observe that the jaw symptoms experienced in December 2006 may have been related to the accident as well.
 The defendant relies upon the following cases as being reasonably analogous to this case and as supporting an award in the range of $15,000 to $22,500 for general damages: Kain v. Kirkman, 2006 BCSC 1770; Nickerson v. Allen Estate, 2006 BCSC 562; Aulakh v. Poirier, 2006 BCSC 2027, and my own decision in Moore v. Cabral, 2006 BCSC 920. However, those cases are all distinguishable from this case.
 The plaintiff relies upon the following cases as supporting an award of $50,000 for general damages in this case: Henri v. Seo, 2009 BCSC 76; Chin v. McCabe, 2006 BCSC 1589; and Pavlovic v. Shields, 2009 BCSC 345. In my view, these cases are reasonably similar to this case and reflect analogous general damages.
 Therefore, an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages in this case is $45,000.
One of the points of interest in this case was the courts comments on Dr. Goldstein. an oral medicine specialist, who ICBC often retains in jaw injury cases. His evidence was rejected over the Plaintiff’s treating oral medicine specialist Dr. Gardner.
 Dr. Goldstein’s bias in favour of the defendant’s case became evident during cross-examination. His attempt under cross-examination to distance himself from the meaning of the phrase emphasized in the above quote damaged his reliability as a witness.
 I also view Dr. Goldstein’s opinion with scepticism because he was not forthright in his report about the fact that flexion extension injury from motor vehicle accident trauma could cause jaw symptoms. Under cross-examination, counsel for the plaintiff put one of Dr. Goldstein’s own articles to him in which he noted the close correlation between TMD and motor vehicle accident trauma.
With the Canucks losing game 6 and the series to the Blackhawks I figured its a fitting time to write about Pain and Suffering Claims in BC.
In the first case, Chan v. Kao, the Plaintiff suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of a 2006 motor vehicle collision. Mr. Justice Verhoeven had credibility concerns with respect to some aspects of the Plaintiff’s testimony. Despite this he concluded that “I have no difficulty in finding that Mr. Chan did in fact injure his left shoulder in the motor vehicle accident“.
72] In summary, I accept that the plaintiff’s left shoulder was injured in the motor vehicle accident, and that he continues to suffer, to some extent, from shoulder difficulties initially caused by the accident. The evidence as to the extent to which the ongoing shoulder problem causes the plaintiff ongoing difficulty and disability with respect to his ability to work is subject to considerable doubt, due to the unreliability of the plaintiff’s evidence in this respect, and the lack of corroborating evidence.
 While Dr. Lui’s prognosis of permanent disability is overly pessimistic, both orthopaedic surgeons are of the view that there are ongoing problems in the shoulder which require treatment. In my view, treatment options have not been adequately explored.
In addition to referencing several cases dealing with pain and suffering values in BC for shoulder injuries this claim is worth reviewing to see how Mr. Justice Verhoeven dealt with his concerns regarding the credibility of certain aspects of the Plaintiff’s evidence.
The second ICBC Pain and Suffering Claim released today (Mattu v. Fust) involved a 2004 collision. The Plaintiff was 39 years old at the time. His vehicle was rear-ended with enough force to push it into the vehicle ahead of him.
 Dr. Parhar has been Mr. Mattu’s family physician since April 2004. He provided three reports to the court. In his first report of November 1, 2004, he diagnosed Mr. Mattu with paracervical, parathoracic and paralumbar muscle strain, left shoulder strain and muscle tension headaches. He had received ice, heat, rest, exercises, massage therapy, kinesiology, acupuncture, herbal medicine and medications: anti-inflamatories, analgesics and muscle relaxants. With respect to prognosis and recommendations, Dr. Parhar was impressed by Mr. Mattu’s motivation to recover and try different treatments, but was concerned that he may be trying too many modalities. He recommended limiting treatment to massage and physiotherapy and increasing active modalities such as swimming and exercises. He anticipated further treatment and improvement.
 In his report of May 26, 2006, Dr. Parhar found that Mr. Mattu continued to have decreased range of motion in the cervical spine, tenderness in the paracervical and paralumbar regions. He found muscle spasm in the paracervical and paralumbar regions. His diagnosis remained the same. His prognosis for full recovery had worsened. Mr. Mattu had tried a variety of treatments with minimal success. Dr. Parhar’s recommendations were unchanged, but he thought that Mr. Mattu’s condition had plateaued.
 I found the evidence of Dr. Parhar to be very helpful. Dr. Parhar has seen Mr. Mattu regularly since shortly after the accident. I accept his opinion that Mr. Mattu suffered paracervical, parathoracic and paralumbar muscle strain, left shoulder strain and muscle tension headaches from the accident; that his condition has plateaued; and that it is unlikely there will be further improvement. I also accept the opinions of Drs. Parhar, Hershler and Hunt that the accident likely caused the disc herniations in Mr. Mattu’s back to become symptomatic. Mr. Mattu will continue to need chiropractic treatment from time to time and would benefit from a personal trainer.
 I have considered the cases which counsel have provided to me. In my view, an appropriate award for non-pecuniary loss is $60,000.
In lengthy reasons for judgement released today by the BC Supreme Court (Peake v. Higo) Mr. Justicer Brown awarded a 52 year old Plaintiff approximately $170,000 in total damages as a result of a 2003 motor vehicle collision.
The Plaintiff had pre-existing pain in her neck and back and these were aggravated as a result of this collision. Additionally, the Plaintiff suffered a frozen left and right shoulder as a result of this collision.
 Considering all the pertinent evidence before me, I find that the plaintiff suffered an aggravation of pre-existing neck and low back pain that she had been experiencing at the time of the accident, together with the imposition of some new soft tissue injuries in those areas. I find that when she was experiencing neck and back pain in the month or so preceding the accident, she was in a highly emotional psychological state that was magnifying her perception of pain at that time. To take her symptoms at this time as representative of her physical health would be inaccurate and unfair, given her medical history as a whole and the accepted evidence of witnesses who testified about her pre-accident functioning and activities. The plaintiff herself acknowledges that 90% would be a fair representation of her pre-accident health. The evidence of Dr. Regan, which I have accepted with some minor qualification, is clear that the 2003 accident cannot be burdened with all of Mrs. Peake’s on-going post accident neck and back symptoms and headaches.
 Mrs. Peake exhibited pre-accident degenerative changes in her cervical spine. Dr. Webb commented that Mrs. Peake’s degenerative cervical spine, exhibited by x-ray and MRI imaging, pre-disposes her to more intense symptoms and prolonged recovery. Just the same, she had already experienced symptoms in the neck (and low back) together with headaches pre-accident, with no recent physical trauma and only a heightened emotional state to partly explain the intensity of her symptoms at that time.
 Further, the effect of Mrs. Peake’s emotional state in May 2003 on her symptoms, and the fact that, as Dr. Webb comments, Mrs. Peake has suffered depressed mood, anxiety and frustration in relation to her symptoms since the accident, is a factor that I should take into account in assessing the extent to which her symptoms have been influenced by her emotional state post accident—and that this bodes positively for further future improvement as her emotional state continues to improve.
 Both Dr. Regan and Dr. Sovio’s opinions negate a direct relationship between Mrs. Peake’s lower back flare-ups and the accident. This is a mechanical condition and the plaintiff has not established that her ongoing back flare-ups, certainly past the summer of 2006, are attributable to the accident. At the same time, Mrs. Peake testified that her low back symptoms are different and more intense then those experienced pre-accident. I find that some small portion of Mrs. Peake’s ongoing lower back symptoms relate to the 2003 accident.
 There is little question that the 2003 accident caused Mrs. Peake’s left shoulder injury and frozen shoulder. I accept Mrs. Peake’s sworn testimony that she continues to experience mild periodic situational discomfort and some functional limitation in the use of her left shoulder.
 With respect to the more problematic question of the causation of Mrs. Peake’s right frozen shoulder, with recovery from that predicted to extend to some time in 2010, albeit in a less problematic way then was the case for the left shoulder, I find that the plaintiff has proven that her right shoulder injury and eventually frozen state was caused by the accident….
 Turning to Mrs. Peake’s neck symptoms and headaches, and Mr. Pankratz’ submission that “but for the subsequent traumatic events of 2006, this condition “would have” resolved completely,” Dr. Regan did not testify that the condition “would” resolve; but “should” resolve. I note that when he wrote his second report, he was aware of ongoing neck complaints and headaches; but made no skeptical comments about their having continued her he last saw Mrs. Peake. Mrs. Peake continues to experience neck pain and headaches that frequently cause her to awaken in the middle of the night with a “terrible headache” that can last for a few days – bearing in mind that Mrs. Peake has a history of pre-accident headaches. Further, Mrs. Peake confirms ongoing improvement; and indeed in the summer of 2006 experienced extended pain-free periods, as stated earlier. I bear in mind as well that she has suffered a right frozen shoulder, but that continues to improve and should resolve completely by 2010; and with improvement in that condition she should see further relief in her neck, noting that she saw considerable improvement when her left shoulder pain and limitation more or less resolved.
 The evidence does not support the gloomier aspects of Dr. Webb’s prognosis considering Dr. Regan’s expectations that Mrs. Peake’s neck pain and accompanying headaches, should eventually recover and Dr. Regan’s opinion that negates a continuing connection between her lower back symptoms and the accident. In my assessment of non-pecuniary damages, and considering Mrs. Peake’s pre-accident condition, I see the medical and other evidence going so far as to support a finding of a possibility that Mrs. Peake will in future continue to suffer some minor residual neck sequelae and headaches that are attachable to the accident, although the most likely outcome is complete recovery from those within two years, insofar as the effects of the 2003 accident are concerned.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.