$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Shoulder Soft Tissue Injury
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder soft tissue injury.
In this week’s case (Jorgensen v. Coonce) the Plaintiff was injured in 2009 when the vehicle in which he was a passenger left the roadway and collided with some trees. ¬†The defendant admitted fault.
The Plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury to his shoulder which remained symptomatic at the time of trial and was expected to pose continued difficulties in the future. ¬†In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Mr. Justice Baird provided the following reasons:
¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†In short, I conclude that the plaintiff suffers from chronic pain from a soft tissue injury in the area of his right shoulder sustained in the May 2009 accident. This injury is not related to the physical or functional deficits that the plaintiff continued to experience as a result of the April 2006 accident for which, as I have noted, the present defendant is not liable.
¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†The May 2009 injury has impacted the quality of the plaintiff‚Äôs life in material measure. He has been unable to pursue his sporting and recreational activities. Worse still, his relationship with his children has suffered because of his physical limitations. He has also been affected, not only in his enjoyment of work, but in his capacity to perform his work adequately, and on all of the evidence I consider it possible that this reduced capacity played a role in his dismissal from long-term, secure, well-paying employment in the paving business…
¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†Having due regard to the often cited factors articulated in¬†Stapley v. Hejslet,¬†2006 BCCA 34 at paragraph 46 and the observations of the Supreme Court of Canada in the¬†Lindal v. Lindal,  2 SCR 629 at p. 637, and employing a discount in light of my findings respecting the plaintiffs pre-existing injury or condition for which the present defendant is not responsible, I have decided that an appropriate award for general damages in this case is $60,000