$75,000 Non Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Low Back and Shoulder Soft Tissue Injuries
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder and low back injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.
In this week’s case (Juraski v. Beek) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 collision. Fault was admitted by the Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered a chronic shoulder injury which remained symptomatic at the time of trial. Her prognosis for complete recovery was poor. She also had mechanical back pain. In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Madam Justice Humphries provided the following reasons:
 Dr. Regan, an orthopaedic surgeon, diagnosed myofascial pain in the plaintiff’s left trapezius and cervical spine, anterior left shoulder pain, and chronic left mechanical low back pain. His report is dated November 26, 2010.
 He testified that Ms. Juraski has supraspinus tendonosis, a chronic condition of the shoulder tendon. He said a tear was possible but upon seeing the MRI of March 31, 2011, agreed it did not support that suggestion. He agreed with Dr. Nobel (see below) that pain block injections would allow more accurate diagnosis, but in view of the passage of time, he did not foresee the shoulder pain settling…
 The accident occurred 4 years ago. I accept that the plaintiff now lives with chronic pain in her shoulder and lower back and will continue to do so, although exercise and strengthening may alleviate her symptoms to some degree, particularly in her back. On a consideration of the medical evidence, including that of Dr. Leith, there is a difference of opinion about the mechanisms causing Ms. Juraski’s pain. However, there is no question but that the chronic pain in her shoulder area and lower back are caused by the accident.
 The plaintiff is obviously a determined and energetic person who will do what is required to make ends meet. However, I am satisfied the quality of her life has been altered by the pain she copes with daily. She is unable to keep up the high standards of housework and household accomplishments she maintained before the accident. To some extent, her ability to live her life as she did is affected by her unenviable work schedule – without that she would probably be able to devote more time to housework and her garden, but she would still have to cope with chronic pain as she did it. Her symptoms are not incapacitating – she works hard and long hours- but her enjoyment of life is considerably curtailed. She admitted on discovery that her sleep is back to normal.
 However, given the time that has passed, the doctors, while recommending strengthening exercises and other treatments, are guarded in their prognosis for improvement in pain and discomfort in the future, especially with her shoulder. On the whole, while some improvement in symptoms might be forthcoming through exercise and core strengthening, the medical practitioners suggest she will have to learn to live with and manage chronic pain.
 The defendant did not argue that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages. She has followed the treatment recommendations offered to her, although her busy work schedule interferes with her ability to exercise and stretch.
 While there are some parallels between the facts here and those outlined in the cases cited to me, those submitted by the plaintiff tend to describe situations where there were other important effects from the accident in addition to chronic pain – for instance, depression, ongoing inability to sleep, post traumatic stress disorder, inability to work, significant reduction in energy, need for significant rehabilitation and counselling. The cases cited by the defendant tend to deal with less severe or pre-existing symptoms, symptoms that resolved after a period of time or were improving, or symptoms localized to one area – either back or shoulder, but not both.
 It is clear that awards for non-pecuniary damages in cases of chronic pain vary fairly widely, and of course the symptoms and effects on each plaintiff’s life are individual. Taking Ms. Juraski’s situation in the context of all of the cases referred to me, I conclude that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $75,000.