$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Soft Tissue Injuries with Persistent Flare Ups
Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for persistent soft tissue injuries with frequent flare ups.
In today’s case (Palmer v. Ansari-Hamedani) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions with the Defendants accepting fault. The first crash was relatively minor with injuries well on their way to recovery by the time of the second crash. The second collision caused persistent soft tissue injuries which continued to the time of trial and often flared up with various activities. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Madam Justice Morellato provided the following reasons:
 In conclusion, I find that Ms. Palmer’s suffered from the following symptoms in the months following the Second Accident: mental “fogginess”; nausea, dizziness, balance issues; ringing in ears, a bump on back of the head, bruising in swelling in the forearm and overwhelming nerve tenderness in the forearm. I find that these symptoms had substantially resolved by the time she returned to full-time work at Dr. McDougall’s office in February of 2013. Other related symptoms, however, persisted as described below.
 Ms. Palmer’s soft tissue injuries to her neck and back have persisted for some time; however, I find that by the time she saw Dr. Pascoe in May of 2017, Ms. Palmer had substantially recovered from these injuries. However, I find that she continues to suffer “flare-ups” as recognized by Dr. Pascoe in her August 2017 reporting letter. Further, as noted above, I also accept that the flare-ups in her neck and back cause occasional headaches, some of which are migraine headaches but these are less frequent.
 The evidence before me has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Palmer suffers cognitive deficits or permanent brain damage from her Second Accident. Nor am I satisfied that her Second Accident affected or compromised her ability to retrain or attend to further educational pursuits.
 I find that while the injury to Ms. Palmer’s right shoulder and arm is not symptomatic on a daily basis, the injury has not yet resolved and continues to cause her pain and discomfort. She suffers pain and numbness in her arm when her arm is tired or she holds her forearm and hand in flexed or extended positions. I am also satisfied on the evidence before me that Ms. Palmer suffers flare-ups of pain in her shoulder area.
 I have also considered the cases counsel have drawn my attention to as well as the related case law: see e.g. Cleeve v. Gregerson et al, 2007 BCSC 1112 [Cleeve]; Senger v. Graham, 2018 BCSC 257; Knight v. Belton, 2010 BCSC 1305. In this light, and having regard to the specific circumstance before me, I am of the view that an award of $85,000 is fair and reasonable.