Adding to this site’s archived damage assessments for thoracic outlet syndrome, reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for such an injury.
In today’s case (Sharma v. MacDonald) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2013 collision that the Defendant accepted fault for. The Plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries the most serious of which was thoracic outlet syndrome. The symptoms lingered to trial and were expected to cause some ongoing limitations. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $100,000 Madam Justice Maisonville provided the following reasons:
 …I find that the defendants are responsible for the plaintiff’s neck, back, and arm issues. In my view, the plaintiff has established on a balance of probabilities that she suffers from thoracic outlet syndrome, as concluded by Dr. Hawkeswood, and that this injury was caused by the defendants’ negligence.
 With respect to anxiety, I accept that the plaintiff suffers from anxiety in relation to driving…
 Regarding non-pecuniary damages, I find that the plaintiff enjoyed a full life before the Accident and had no issues with respect to her neck and back. Nor did she have a tingling feeling in her arm or numbness of her right arm.
 I find that, as she testified, the plaintiff did not have to rest after having performed her regular activities. I also find that she did not experience headaches or low mood symptoms prior to the Accident.
 I do find, however, that the plaintiff has been steadily improving. I note that she enjoys playing basketball. I note that she now works without significant limitations. I note that she has gone back to a number of her pre-Accident activities. She is not as socially isolated now that she has returned home from Edmonton.
 I accept that the plaintiff still suffers from numbness and tingling feelings in her right arm, and from some neck and back pain. However, the pain she has now is not like the pain immediately following the Accident. The plaintiff is able to work to the extent she testified to. While I appreciate that she must rest afterward, she is not disabled from working.
 In all of the circumstances, I award the plaintiff $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages.