Christine Vera Mansfield v Gary Ramsey [1993] ACTSC 21 (24 March 1993)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

CHRISTINE VERA MANSFIELD v. GARY RAMSEY
No. SC824 of 1985
Number of pages - 3
Damages

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Master Hogan(1)

CATCHWORDS

Damages - Assessment - Personal injury - Motor vehicle accident - Neck injury - Soft tissue only - No issue of principle.

HEARING

CANBERRA, 8 December 1992
24:3:1993

Counsel for the Plaintiff: P. Burton

Instructing Solicitors: Macphillamy Donald and Co

Counsel for the Defendant: P. O'Connor

Instructing Solicitors: Crossin Barker Gosling

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $26,290.

DECISION

MASTER HOGAN This is an action for damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident on 2 February 1985.

2. The plaintiff is a married woman with three children. She was born on 2 September 1949. She is employed as a drafting officer with the Australian Services and Land Information Group, which is part of the Commonwealth Department of Administrative Services. Before the accident she was in good health.

3. On 2 February 1985 she was driving a vehicle in Hindmarsh Drive when a vehicle driven by the defendant, which was behind her, attempted to overtake on the left hand side. In doing so it collided with the left hand side of the plaintiff's vehicle. She braked and tried as best she could to keep her car in her own lane, to avoid colliding with traffic that might come in the opposite direction. As she gripped the steering wheel tightly she felt a series of impacts and was thrown sideways, forwards and backwards.

4. She was wearing a seat belt and did not strike any part of her body on the inside of the car. Initially she was shaken. She drove to collect her son who was waiting for her at Weston and then to the Woden Police Station to report the accident. She then drove home.

5. Later that evening she felt a tingling sensation in the back of her neck and when she woke in the morning she was suffering from a headache. She therefore went to the Woden Valley Hospital.

6. The hospital records disclose that on examination there was limited neck flexion, extension and rotation with some spasm of the neck muscle. There were no abnormal neurological signs. X-ray of the cervical spine revealed no bony abnormality. The diagnosis was of muscular spasm. She was given analgesics and a cervical collar.

7. The following day she rested at home. On 5 February she consulted her general practitioner, Dr Low. He found that rotation of her neck towards the left was restricted by pain. There was no compression tenderness of the cervical spine. She was unable to place her hand behind her neck or behind her back. Both hands appeared to grip normally. He diagnosed sprain/soft tissue injury to the neck. He found no evidence of disc or bony injury. He prescribed physiotherapy treatment.

8. She began physiotherapy treatment at Woden Valley Hospital on 8 February. Initially she was treated with heat and immobilised in a soft collar. As her headaches began to decrease in frequency and intensity the pain in the neck and stiffness were the main problem. As she improved and began increasing her activities the pain increased accordingly. Early in April 1985 a fall exacerbated the neck pain. Dr Low referred her to Dr Chandran, neurosurgeon, who saw her on 11 April 1985.

9. The plaintiff claimed to Dr Chandran that she was having pain in the neck extending into the left hand involving the middle two fingers. She was not able to work because bending over the drafting desk for a prolonged period of time with her neck flexed made the pain worse. On examination Dr Chandran found no weakness, and reflexes were symmetrical. Sensation was diminished in the left hand, although not fitting any dermatomal pattern. There was tenderness of the right sub occipital region with slight restriction of neck movements. His advice to her was that she had suffered soft tissue injury to the neck, which would take several months to subside with conservative treatment. He prescribed a course of anti inflammatory drugs, further physiotherapy, and advised her on exercises and posture.

10. She wore a collar for about six weeks, and it was early in June before she was able to return to work. By that time the headaches had improved and become intermittent. She continued to undergo physiotherapy about three times a week. The physiotherapist notes that her initial return to work caused an increase in pain particularly in the shoulder and scapular area. Working half days from 14 June was easier, although she was still not pain free. By 24 June she was able to attend work full time. The physiotherapist initially discharged her on 8 October. It was noted that she then had no neck pain and only occasional shoulder pain which settled quickly. Neck movements were free with lateral flexion slightly stiff. There was no tenderness on palpation. She had an ongoing exercise program and was keeping very well.

11. On 18 November 1985 she was involved in a further accident. That accident also caused soft tissue injury to her neck. It is the subject of another action.

12. On 10 July 1985 Dr Low had reported, "We have not heard from the patient for more than a month by now and probably she is happily back to normal work." His report on the November accident concludes, "The accident of 8 November 1985 was fully responsible for aggravating the symptoms and injuries due to the accident of 2 February 1985. The second accident brought on clinical features subsided due to the first accident."

13. When he saw her after the second accident. Dr Chandran did not comment on the extent to which the first accident was responsible for the symptoms from which she was then suffering.

14. In the course of investigations into the results of the second accident she was seen by Dr Corry on 17 March 1987. He reports a history that by September 1985 she was developing symptoms in her left arm, spreading to the middle finger, suggestive of nerve root involvement. That is not supported by the evidence, and I do not regard it as significant. I do not agree with what Dr Corry seems to suggest, that her symptoms in 1987 related to the accident in February, with some aggravation in the November accident.

15. On 30 May 1987 she saw Dr Keiller, and appears to have told him that she still had some symptoms at the time of the second accident. On 30 November 1987 Dr McEwin records that she felt that she was making a slow but steady recovery when she had the accident.

16. The plaintiff could not remember that she was still taking medication in October. She was still tentative at doing some things, and taking intermittent short breaks at work for some time, but in her evidence she said that she was back to normal, "as if I had't been injured" by about September.

17. The accident in February 1985 did not cause damage to any but soft tissues. There is no evidence that it left her in a condition that made her more susceptible to further injury of the same type. I regard the effects of the February accident as being completely spent by the time she sustained the second injury.

18. In summary she received a moderate soft tissue injury to the neck, which prevented her from working for about 4 months. It cleared up gradually with fairly constant conservative treatment, so that about ten months later there were only minimal residual effects.

19. For her pain and suffering I award $15,000. None of that relates to the future, and the suffering to which it relates spanned less than a year in 1985. I award $4,500 for interest on general damages.

20. The out of pocket expenses are agreed at $181.50, the loss of wages at $6,331, and an award under the principles of Griffiths v Kerkemeyer at $277.50.

21. I direct the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $26,290.