J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: ALICE WELLMAN and EMILY HEDSTROM DEFENDANT E. F. A. Merchant and for the plaintiff D. R. Filyk D. A. Phillips for the defendant JUDGMENT KYLE J. March 14, 1994 The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accidenton February 8, 1988, in the City of Regina. Liability is not in issue. The trial of the action concerned the level ofdamages to which the plaintiff is entitled. Mrs. Wellman is now 72 years old. She was 67 at thetime of the accident. Her injury was a whiplash injury whichwas according to medical evidence filed, substantiallyresolved over a period of about one year following theaccident. The difficult aspect of this case arises from the fact that Mrs. Wellman was involved in previous accidents and also suffered from diabetes, osteoporosis and hypertension. She has delusions of paranoidal nature which have made it difficult to obtain clear picture of her subjective symptoms. She was confined to wheelchair from 1981 until 1983 following some back surgery and again in 1987. She says that before the accident she could climb stairs with the aid of both handrails or with cane and handrail. Since the whiplash injury she has fallen twice and has broken both hips, each of which has resulted in surgery involving the implantation of plastic parts. She says however, that she has logged 10,000 kilometres on her exercise bicycle since the injury and continues to do so notwithstanding that she is small, rather frail and confined to wheelchair. She complains that she has had to give up dancing because of the accident. It was the particular challenge of this case to identify the extent of the injury and its consequences within rather complex and not always believable context which she described to the Court and to her doctors. Dr. Gorania, her doctor of many years standing, treated her the day following the accident and throughout 1988 and early 1989. By November of 1988 he concluded that she had regained her "pre-accident state". As he was the only expert who was familiar with her pre-accident state must give greater weight to his conclusions than to those of Dr. Bill Elliott or of Brenda Collacott the physical therapist. Both of them testified at the trial. Dr. Gorania was not called to testify. While Dr. Elliott considered that her present level of disability was "in part" the result of the accident of February 8, 1988, he was unable to quantify that part. Brenda Collacott quoted Mrs. Wellman as having said that she had not been compensated for her earlier accident and was going to see that she was well compensated for this one. Mrs. Wellman denied that she was trying to secure compensation for both injuries in this lawsuit but that inference could be drawn from the testimony of the therapist. It is noted that she visited Dr. Gorania on February 9, March 8, April and May 11 of 1988. By the time she saw her doctor on May 11, 1988, she was concerned only with her diabetes. The doctor noted "no mention of the MVA related problem". His report of June 22, 1988 indicated nolikelihood of permanent disability and indicated partialdisability of only three months. She complained of neck stiffness on July 30, 1988 and it was noted that she "definitely showed signs of mental illness". By November 1, 1988, while neck and back pains were still there they were attributed to previous neck problem unrelated to the accident. The doctor's report said "she is, or now, can be considered to have returned to her pre-accident state". do not question Dr. Elliott's conclusion as to her present state but if one adds her pre-existing conditions to the two post-accident falls and subsequent hip replacements, it is not possible to conclude on the evidence that the part of her present condition brought about by the accident or in any way related thereto is of significance. do not believe that she has ridden 10,000 kilometres on her exercise bicycle at one of the higher levels of available tension. If she has, her disabilities are less than would have otherwise found them to be. do not believe that she did much dancing before the accident. If she did her description of her difficulty climbing stairs and the fact of her having been wheelchair bound in 1987 would need to be discounted. don't think she has lied about these things rather find, as Ms. Collacott found that "Mrs. Wellman is poor historian". conclude therefor that the whiplash injury was of mild to moderate nature and that it was to large extent cleared up within three months with some continuing discomfort for perhaps another year after which its impact upon this often injured person was not significant and should not be considered in assessing damages arising from the February 8, 1988 accident. It is noted that she was not confined to wheelchair in 1988 either before or after the accident and do not accept that the accident contributed to her being so confined at this time. As to the quantum of damages she has suffered, I find that the proper level at the time of the accident is$18,000. I do not accept any evidence tendered in respect ofher loss of housekeeping capacity as it would appear that shewas substantially disabled prior to the accident. Such inconvenience as was suffered during the year following the accident will be adequately compensated by the non-pecuniary damage award. The pecuniary expenditures of $1,989.82 are allowed. Carpet cleaning expenses are not allowed as they do not appear to have been incurred for any reason reasonably attributable to the accident. Pre-judgment interest will apply in respect of the non-pecuniary damages. It will also apply to the out-of- pocket expenses to be calculated from the date of the last expenditure in each of the categories claimed to this date. The plaintiff shall have her costs of this action to be taxed.
The Plaintiff, aged 72 years, claimed ongoing damages resulting from a whiplash injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident 5 years earlier. She had been involved in previous accidents and also suffered from osteoporosis and hypertension. She displayed some symptoms of mental illness, including paranoid delusions. HELD: The Plaintiff's evidence as to her condition was not accepted. Based upon the opinion of her doctor, the court found partial disability of 3 months, and that her symptoms were fully resolved within 1 year. The court awarded general damages of $18,000.00.  The court refused to award damages for loss of housekeeping capacity, given the Plaintiff's disability prior to the accident.