$65,000 Non-Pecuniary Damages For Thoracic Outlet Syndrome With "Mixed" Prognosis
Adding to this site’s public database of BC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome cases, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a TOS Injury with a “mixed” prognosis.
In this week’s case (Singh v. Clay) the Plaintiff was involved in a total of 5 collisions. He alleged 4 of these caused or aggravated a Thoracic Outlet Injury and sued for damages. Fault was admitted in all actions.
Mr. Justice Greyell concluded that the Plaintiff did in fact suffer from Thoracic Outlet Syndrome and that the injury was caused, on an indivisible basis, from the collisions. Damages were assessed on a global basis. In awarding $65,000 for the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) the Court made the following findings:
 Based on the medical reports and testimony of Drs. Keyes and Travlos, I am satisfied the plaintiff suffers from thoracic outlet syndrome which causes him difficulty holding his hands above his head, causes his left arm and shoulder to go numb such that he must lower his arm and “shake” the tingling and numbness out, and that this injury affects him both at work and in his home life as described earlier in this decision.
 He is also affected because his injury wakes him several times each night, causing him to be tired the following day.
 The plaintiff also suffered low back pain and persistent headaches which lasted for several years after the second accident but which have now cleared up…
 I find the prognosis for Mr. Singh is a mixed one. Dr. Keyes’ diagnosis is a difficult one to understand. On the one hand he has opined that there is likely some permanent injury to the plaintiff’s neurovascular bundle in the left thoracic outlet space. On the other hand, he has opined there is no permanent injury or damage of the neurovascular bundle in the left thoracic anatomic space. Dr. Keyes was clear however Mr. Singh would “almost certainly respond” without surgical intervention and expected that his symptoms would improve “and probably resolve over time”. Dr. Keyes’ prognosis for the plaintiff’s injuries is “very good to excellent” and he says that his recreational and employment activities would “not be significantly affected over the long term”. The caveat Dr. Keyes offered to this opinion in the penultimate paragraph was that “repeated injuries to the same areas… would be expected to result in similar symptoms and a more prolonged recovery…” Mr. Singh was involved in motor vehicle accidents on September 18, 2007 (which he did not tell Dr. Keyes about) and November 1, 2008, and the at-fault accident on March 19, 2007.
 At the time of trial Dr. Keyes had not seen the plaintiff for some four years.
 Dr. Travlos’s prognosis, based on an assessment made in April 2009 was much more guarded. As noted above he was of the opinion “there is no real expectation that further treatment is going to magically cure his symptoms.” Dr. Travlos recommended Mr. Singh commence a structured conditioning program outside the home. There was no evidence to suggest Mr. Singh has followed Dr. Travlos’s recommendation to engage in a conditioning program outside his home or that he take medication to help relieve his sleeping problems. Had he done so it is possible these problems would have resolved more quickly than they have.
 In my view the injuries suffered by Mr. Singh are more significant than those suffered by the plaintiff in Langley but less serious than those suffered by the plaintiffs in Cimino and Durand. I assess the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $65,000.