Spasovska v Nominal Defendant (ACT) [2005] ACTSC 2 (30 January 2006)

Last Updated: 6 April 2006

ANITA SPASOVSKA v NOMINAL DEFENDANT (ACT)

[2005] ACTSC 2 (30 January 2006)

DAMAGES - personal injury - whiplash injury to neck and low back - no issue of principle.

No. SC 304 of 2003

Judge: Master Harper

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 30 January 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SC 304 of 2003

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: ANITA SPASOVSKA

Plaintiff

AND: NOMINAL DEFENDANT (ACT)

Defendant

ORDER

Judge: Master Harper

Date: 30 January 2006

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $28,950.

1. This is an assessment of damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision on 27 August 2000. The plaintiff, who was born on 21 December 1983 and was then 16, was a front seat passenger in her father's car which was stationary at an intersection when it was struck from behind by an uninsured vehicle. The collision was wholly due to the negligence of the driver of the uninsured vehicle.

2. The plaintiff was at the time in Year 11 at Karabar High School at Queanbeyan, where her family live. They are of Macedonian origin, and the plaintiff speaks that language although her English has no trace of an accent.

3. At the time of the accident the plaintiff had a part-time job with Westco Jeans in Canberra City. She generally worked on Friday nights and on Saturdays and Sundays during school terms, and also on weekdays during school holidays. Her hours varied. She was paid between $9 and $10 an hour. She earned amounts between about $30 and $120 a week during term, and up to $280 per week during school holidays. She had been working in the job since December 1999.

4. The plaintiff had no relevant pre-accident medical history, except that about six months earlier she had fallen down some stairs and injured her right ankle. She was on crutches for about six weeks but had made an almost complete recovery by the time of the motor accident.

5. The plaintiff's oral evidence was that immediately following the motor accident she felt back pain and a bad headache. She demonstrated the site of the back pain in court as between and just below the shoulder blades. The car was driveable and her father took her home. She did not see a doctor immediately, but went to the family general practitioner, Dr GN Sukumar, two days later. On his advice she took Panadol. At some point, it is not clear precisely when, she attended physiotherapy, probably just for one session.

6. Her recollection was that she had a day or two off work with Westco Jeans. She gave evidence, consistently with the statement of particulars filed by her solicitors, that she continued to work with Westco for about another month. She gave it up because she was unable to cope with the lifting required during the course of stocktaking, which caused pain in the area she had previously demonstrated. She said that she had planned to keep working at Westco Jeans for perhaps another year.

7. She finished Year 12 at the end of 2001, and attended a six-month full-time course in business management conducted by the Australian Business Academy in Canberra City. She found that carrying and wearing a backpack full of textbooks, and sitting at a computer, exacerbated her back pain. She continued to experience headaches three or four times a week during this period. Her evidence was that these continued up to the hearing. She took Panadol to relieve the headaches. Initially after the accident she also had pain in the neck but this had resolved by the time of the hearing.

8. In February 2003 she started employment as a clerical assistant with the Commonwealth Department of Defence and is still employed in that capacity. She has been able to manage the requirements of that job without any need to take time off. She has never succeeded in getting back to the sporting activities she enjoyed before the car accident, principally soccer and tennis. She has attempted tennis a couple of times but has been unable to play because of pain in the back and shoulders.

9. She was asked in chief whether she thought that the accident had had any effect on her enjoyment of activities and her level of happiness. She said that it had had a negative effect in relation to her sporting and social activities, which made her feel sad.

10. The plaintiff gave her evidence in chief quite briefly. She is young and not particularly sophisticated, and giving evidence must have been a foreign and somewhat intimidating experience for her. Her answers were generally of but a few words. She seemed quiet, shy and diffident. She did not present as a person who had come to court with the aim of maximising or exaggerating her case.

11. Notwithstanding this, she was extensively cross-examined and it became apparent that some of her earlier evidence had been less than completely accurate. Faced with records produced by Westco Jeans, she had little choice but to agree that she had continued to work there not for one month but for thirteen months. She left Westco on 21 September 2001. Whilst it was not put to her in cross-examination, it is apparent that this was not long before the Higher School Certificate examinations she must have sat at the end of Year 12. Before she was shown the documents, she was asked whether it was possible that she had continued with Westco until September 2001. Her answer was "I don't think so. I don't know... I stopped after pretty much the accident." Her subsequent explanation was that all this had been some years ago by the time she gave her evidence and she was not sure of the details or precisely when she had finished up. She did not accept that she had given her evidence in chief with a view to bolstering her claim. She was sure in her mind that it had been only a month and had not realised it had been so long. She agreed, when copies of payslips were shown to her, that she had worked for lengthy periods, up to thirty hours a week during the 2000-2001 Christmas holidays. She explained that stocktakes occurred as frequently as once a month, so that she had might have been engaged in as many as thirteen stocktakes from the date of the accident until she resigned.

12. The assertion that the plaintiff worked for only a month after the accident before being obliged to stop work was included in particulars provided by the plaintiff's solicitors to the defendant in a letter dated 3 January 2003, some months before proceedings were instituted. I find it difficult to credit that the plaintiff could have believed, in January 2003, that she had worked for only a month after the accident when the reality was that she had worked for more than a year. She had ceased work little more than a year before those particulars were provided. The inconsistency must at the very least cast great doubt on the accuracy of the plaintiff's recollection and her reliability as a historian.

13. She was asked in cross-examination whether she had been engaged in any other paid employment or casual work from the time she stopped work with Westco until she started with the Department of Defence. She said that she had done some casual work helping her mother out as a cleaner at an office building for about a month, at times when her mother's employer was short-staffed. On those occasions she would work with her mother from 5.30 pm until 10 pm, perhaps two or three days a week. She thought that this was at the end of the year she did her business course, 2002, not long before she started her present employment.

14. The plaintiff was again asked specifically whether she could recall doing any other work, paid or unpaid, before she started with the Defence Department. She replied that the work assisting her mother was the only thing she could think of. She was then asked whether she knew of a business called BLD Enterprises, a building business. She said that this was a business owned by her uncle, and that she was not employed but worked there without pay doing office duties for experience. She could not remember when, but thought that it was probably during 2002. She said that she did mainly filing and a little word processing. She also used her aunt's computer at home, entering data for the business using an accounting package.

15. She accepted that she had spent time by way of work experience organised through her school at a number of businesses, for about a week at a time, including Travelworld, the Marco Polo Club, the Airport International Motor Inn and the Queanbeyan Age Newspaper.

16. She was then asked whether she knew of an establishment called Jelly Beans Children's Preschool and Childcare Centre. She agreed that she had worked there, probably during 2002, on a casual but paid basis. She relieved carers during lunch breaks. She would come in when needed, and generally worked on some kind of roster. She thought that she had worked there for about three or four months, possibly a bit longer. The work had not been heavy and had not required her to lift children. She was asked to explain why she had not volunteered that she had been in this employment. Her explanation was that it was something she simply did not think of. The opportunity had arisen at a time when she had no job, and she could not say no. She thought that it had been during a break in her business course.

17. I do not see the plaintiff's failure to volunteer evidence of her school work experience periods as of any significance, but I find it hard to believe that the plaintiff could have forgotten her paid work over some months at the childcare centre. I was left with the impression that the plaintiff did not intend to divulge this employment, or the work associated with her family, until she was left with no choice. The plaintiff's evidence in this regard reflected adversely on her credit.

18. For the sake of completeness, I should make reference to the fact that the plaintiff was cross-examined about forms she had completed or signed at different times where the information she sought to convey was argued to be inconsistent with her case. In October 2001, she attended the practice of a Canberra general practitioner, Dr Rososinski. She saw him twice, about medical matters unrelated to her complaints in this case. She completed a personal information record form at his surgery, where she was asked to tick yes/no boxes as to whether she had ever suffered from any of twenty-five medical conditions. She ticked the no box for all of these except "any skin disorder?" to which she answered affirmatively. Among the twenty-four negatives was "any back or spinal problems?" I regard this as insignificant. On any view of it, the answer was incorrect, and counsel for the defendant submits that I should infer that the plaintiff by October 2001 had no back or spinal symptoms. I am more inclined to the view that she ticked the no box because she was seeing Dr Rososinski about other medical matters and saw the question as irrelevant.

19. On 27 November 2002, the plaintiff signed an accident notification form provided by NRMA Insurance Limited, the insurer administering the claim on behalf of the nominal defendant. The substance of the form was completed by her solicitor, Mr Robb. The form is sketchy in the extreme. It includes a question "What injuries did you get in the accident? List all injuries." Mr Robb filled in:

Injury to cervical spine

" " thoracic spine

The form was submitted to the nominal defendant at the address of NRMA Insurance Limited with a three-page covering letter signed by Mr Robb setting out considerably more detail, including the following as to injuries and disabilities:

(2) Our client suffered a soft tissue injury to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine.

(3) Our client continues to suffer the following ongoing disabilities:

a) Intermittent pain in the cervical spine which fluctuates in intensity.

b) Restriction of movement in the cervical spine.

c) Frequent severe headaches.

d) Constant pain in the thoracic spine which fluctuates in intensity and which is aggravated by activities such as carrying her schoolbag.

e) Intermittent pain in the lumbar spine which is aggravated by lifting or bending.

f) Necessity to take pain-killing medication for the headaches.

g) Necessity to have MRI scan.

20. Counsel for the defendant submitted that I should infer from the notification form that the only injuries of which the plaintiff complained in November 2002 were those to the cervical spine and the thoracic spine. Mr Robb's letter was dated 3 January 2003, and makes it clear that the plaintiff's instructions encompassed the alleged injury to the lumbar spine also. I draw no inference adverse to the plaintiff from the NRMA form.

21. The plaintiff completed two Department of Defence commencement record forms for civilian employees. Each form included a portion worded as follows:

(3) Equity and diversity details

Equity and diversity are about a fair go, utilising people's differences and eliminating discrimination. Your answers to this section will be compiled into statistical data and used in the development of equity and diversity strategies.

The completion of this part of the form is voluntary.

What was the first language you spoke? (may be more than one)

First language: Second language:

Was English the first language spoken by your mother?

Yes ? No ? Unknown ?

Was English the first language spoken by your father?

Yes ? No ? Unknown ?

Do you have a disability that is likely to last two years or more?

Yes ? No ?

Are you an Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander?

Yes ? No ?

22. The plaintiff replied to the effect that her first language was English and her second was Macedonian, and that English was not the first language spoken by either of her parents. In relation to the disability question, she ticked the no space. Counsel cross-examined her about this and sought to suggest that her responses were inconsistent with any assertion of continuing disability by the date she completed the forms (15 May 2003 and 28 April 2004).

23. It seems obvious to me that the question in the form was directed at the issue of discrimination by the employer on the basis of a disability of an employee. The plaintiff said in evidence that she associated disability for the purposes of the form with wheelchairs. The section of the form is clearly not aimed at informing the employer of the employee's medical history, but rather at identifying whether the employee might fall into one of the categories protected by anti-discrimination legislation. I do not regard the plaintiff's answers on the form as of any significance for the purposes of the case.

24. Unfortunately the disposition of the action has been complicated, for solicitors, counsel and the Court, by inadequacies in record-keeping by the plaintiff's principal general practitioner, Dr Sukumar, and by his first report (25 July 2003) to the plaintiff's solicitors for their assistance in the preparation of the case. The difficulties were not initially apparent on the documents but came out in the course of Dr Sukumar's oral evidence.

25. Dr Sukumar practises at a group general practice, the Crawford Street Clinic, in Queanbeyan. Mr Robb wrote to him on 13 June 2002, enclosing an authority signed by the plaintiff and requesting a copy of his clinical notes. Dr Sukumar's evidence was that he would have seen this letter but delegated it to the practice manager who would have had staff identify and copy the relevant documents. Copies were forwarded to Mr Robb's firm on 10 August 2002, with a covering letter on Dr Sukumar's letterhead but not signed by him. The last entry in the handwritten notes was dated 8 July 2002, though there was also included a report from the Canberra Imaging Group, dated 15 July 2002, which read as follows:

LUMBO-SACRAL SPINE

Clinical notes

Back pain for three weeks

Report

The disc heights are well preserved

The bones appear normal and are in good alignment

26. The notes contained an entry for 29 August 2000, two days after the motor accident, in Dr Sukumar's handwriting as follows:

Front seat passenger in MVA on 27/8/00

Whiplash injury

There followed entries of attendances by the plaintiff at the surgery in October 2000, January 2001, February 2001 and January 2002, as well as the entry previously mentioned on 8 July 2002. Some of these entries are in different handwriting, no doubt because the plaintiff saw other doctors at some attendances.

27. The solicitors for the defendant arranged for the issue of a notice for non-party production addressed to Dr Sukumar at the Crawford Street Clinic in July 2003. It was only during Dr Sukumar's cross-examination that it became apparent that there were in existence two different versions of the page which included the entry for 29 August 2000. The copy page produced by the practice manager in 2003 included additional handwriting by Dr Sukumar. In the blank areas around the entry for 29 August 2000, the following words had been added (I have expanded the doctor's shorthand consistently with his explanations in evidence):

Occipital headaches.

Range of movement neck reduced.

Focal tenderness.

No neurological defects in limbs.

Lower lumbo-sacral spine range of movement diminished.

Legs OK.

28. The following page of the notes shows that Dr Sukumar had seen the plaintiff again on 26 July 2002. She was seen at the practice on a further fifteen occasions from 20 September 2002 until 27 August 2004.

29. The documents produced on subpoena also included a number of pages of notes printed from a computer record. The first attendance recorded in the computer notes was on 19 June 2000, about two months before the motor accident, when the plaintiff was complaining of plantar warts. There were then notes of seven attendances at the practice after the accident up to the end of June 2002, most of which simply recorded prescription medication and none of which have any obvious connection to any of the symptoms described by the plaintiff as related to the motor accident. There was then a computer entry for 12 July 2002 when Dr Sukumar saw the plaintiff and noted:

Low back pain for three weeks. Migraine headaches for three months with sensitivity. Actions: X-ray LS spine. Prescriptions printed: Sandomigran tablet 0.5mg 1 nocte Mobic 7.5mg bd.

30. Sandomigran is a medication for the prevention of migraine headaches; Mobic is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

31. There was no chronological note of the attendance on 12 July 2002 in the handwritten notes. The system adopted within the practice and by Dr Sukumar personally as to recording attendances in the handwritten notes and by computer is far from clear. Dr Sukumar gave evidence that he generally kept one record or the other of any particular attendance, with the exception that he kept both a handwritten record and a computer record where a patient was seeing him about a compensable condition. I found his explanation in this regard confused and difficult to accept.

32. When asked to explain the additional wording in relation to the attendance of 29 August 2000, Dr Sukumar said that he had added these notes during the course of the attendance on 12 July 2002. He could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why he had done so, and accepted that the notes, kept in that way, had been objectively misleading, and had in fact misled him when he came to prepare a typed report for the plaintiff's solicitors a year later. He agreed that the notes he added in July 2002 were of complaints made to him and observations made by him at the July 2002 consultation. He conceded that he had no independent recollection, by the time he gave evidence or even by July 2002, of what the plaintiff had told him in August 2000, and that he would have been reliant on his notes in that regard.

33. As I have said, Dr Sukumar prepared a typed report dated 25 July 2003 for the plaintiff's solicitors. He prepared this in part from his notes. There can be no doubt, and Dr Sukumar accepts, that he misled himself by assuming that the altered notes for 29 August 2000 were all notes that he had made on that date. To add to the confusion, by the time he prepared his report, Dr Sukumar had available to him a medico-legal report prepared by Dr Owen White, a Melbourne based neurologist, who had seen the plaintiff in August 2002 at the request of her solicitors. Dr White commenced his report with a history he had taken from the plaintiff. Regrettably Dr Sukumar saw fit to incorporate into his report verbatim much of the history obtained by Dr White. This gave the false impression to a reader of Dr Sukumar's report that he had taken the history himself, much of it two days after the accident.

34. Dr White, as I have mentioned, saw the plaintiff on 1 August 2002. She was by then 18. She gave him a history that prior to the motor accident she was a fit and healthy high school student playing tennis and soccer on a weekly basis until six months before the accident when she injured her right leg and was on crutches for some weeks. After physiotherapy she had almost completely recovered by the time of the motor vehicle accident. Immediately following the impact she was aware of headache and cervical pain. Within thirty minutes she also had low back pain. She was reviewed by her general practitioner and was prescribed analgesic medication. She went home to rest. The pain did not settle substantially. She went back to school but did not return to sport and had not played since. She completed school and by the time she saw Dr White had recently completed a business course and was looking for clerical work. Her complaints were of low back pain, intermittent neck stiffness and headaches about three times a week requiring Panadol. On examination there was generalised tenderness in the neck and low back. There was variability of movement but no measurable restriction of movement, although the plaintiff did appear to have pain with all movements at both levels. There was no neurological abnormality. Recent X-rays of the lumbo-sacral spine were normal.

35. Dr White diagnosed the plaintiff as having suffered primarily a soft tissue injury. He thought that her complaints were out of keeping with such an injury and recommended MRI investigation of the cervical and lumbo-sacral spines. He was reluctant to accept that she would be left with any permanent disability given her youth and the description of the accident.

36. Dr White saw the plaintiff again in October 2004. There had been no significant change in her complaints since he last saw her. She continued to complain of lumbar pain, some cervical pain although this had substantially improved, and constant headache. She was working full-time in an office. She needed to get up from her computer and move around several times a day. She was playing no sport and undertaking only light domestic duties. She was virtually sedentary. Movement of the neck and low back were minimally restricted on examination although she complained of pain on movement. Neurological examination was essentially normal. Dr White suspected that the plaintiff might have an annular tear in the lumbar region and again recommended MRI investigation. He accepted a diagnosis by a psychiatrist, Dr Stern, of significant depression. He thought that the plaintiff might benefit from counselling and rehabilitation, and that there was room for improvement in her condition, particularly her perception of her injury.

37. Dr White did not give oral evidence and hence was not cross-examined. I was urged by counsel for the defendant to give little weight to his opinion having regard to what was said to be the false or at least greatly exaggerated history he had been given.

38. Dr Stern saw the plaintiff on two occasions, the first being in October 2003. He was furnished with the earlier reports of Dr Sukumar and Dr White. He took a history similar to that provided to Dr White. The plaintiff told him that she was depressed by her pain and sometimes tearful. She was upset by minor things and sometimes screamed at her brother. She became anxious, and this was sometimes accompanied by chest pain and difficulty in catching her breath. Her sleep was restless and she had nightmares about the accident among other things. She had lost energy, appetite and some weight. Her memory and concentration were reduced and she was forgetful. She was anxious as a driver and as a passenger in a motor vehicle. She had been particularly distressed by seeing another motor car accident about two months before she saw Dr Stern. She told him that she had lost interest in socialising. She generally enjoyed her job with the Defence Department but on some days felt too depressed to work. Dr Stern noted that the plaintiff's father, a concreter, had suffered a neck injury at work in 2002 and had suffered from depression since then. Her father accompanied her to the consultation. Her presentation was depressed and her confidence seemed low, but her intelligence appeared average or higher and her orientation and memory appeared intact.

39. Dr Stern, accepting the history he had been given, diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from a chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which in his opinion was caused by the motor accident. He thought that she was positively motivated and that she would benefit from about ten sessions of psychological treatment. Her psychiatric prognosis would depend largely on the success of that treatment.

40. Dr Stern saw the plaintiff again in March 2005. Her condition was basically unchanged, as was Dr Stern's opinion.

41. Dr Stern did not give oral evidence. Counsel for the defendant, as with Dr White, submitted that I should reject his opinion because it was based on a false or greatly exaggerated history.

42. The only medical evidence tendered on behalf of the defendant was a report by Dr PD Stevenson, consultant physician, who saw the plaintiff in July 2004 pursuant to arrangements made by the defendant's solicitors. He was provided with effectively the same history as Dr White and Dr Stern. In addition, he was given access to copies of clinical notes from Dr Sukumar's practice. He accepted that the plaintiff had some initial neck pain consistent with a grade 1 whiplash injury, that is to say, symptoms without signs, a combination of minor soft tissue strain and heightened pain perception due to fright and arousal. In his report, Dr Stevenson made reference to international medical literature as to studies of whiplash injuries. He said that the median duration of symptoms was three days and the longest recorded in the studies (conducted in Eastern Europe, Germany, Greece and Southeast Asia) about three weeks. Dr Stevenson accepted that the plaintiff at the time of the examination had some symptoms in the thoracic spine area, which he thought were due to a mixture of psychological factors such as anxiety, and postural discomfort associated with her computer keyboard work. He took the view that the plaintiff had suffered at most a minor strain, and that she would require no treatment in the future.

43. One of the difficulties in the case is the paucity of evidence about the plaintiff's condition in the early period after the accident. As I have said, I did not find the plaintiff a reliable historian. I am unable to place weight on her evidence as to her recollection of her symptoms immediately after the accident, and in particular her evidence as to the onset and duration of low back pain and of upper thoracic pain.

44. Dr Sukumar, as one would expect, has no independent recollection of what he was told by the plaintiff at the initial, or indeed at any, consultation. He is a busy general practitioner and sees about fifty patients a day: the first consultation was some four and a half years before he gave his oral evidence. His written reports, as I have explained, cannot be relied upon. He was clearly very embarrassed during the course of his evidence when it came out that his notes of the initial consultation had been supplemented two years later and that his written report was based on the altered rather than the original notes and on a history obtained by Dr White two years after the accident. Counsel for the defendant obtained from Dr Sukumar concessions that if the plaintiff had made specific complaints at the first consultation of pain to particular parts of her body, he would have recorded them in her notes. Counsel was then able to submit that I should find, from the lack of any record, that the plaintiff could not have complained of upper thoracic or lumbar pain on 29 August 2000.

45. I am not persuaded of this. The note made by Dr Sukumar on 29 August 2000 was brief in the extreme, making no mention of any complaint of pain to any part of the body. It is inconceivable to me that Dr Sukumar would not have taken from the plaintiff details of her complaints of pain, and that he would not have conducted a physical examination. It seems to me that he simply failed to record the history he was given and details of the examination and his findings.

46. Thus, although the first mention of low back pain in Dr Sukumar's notes is the computer record of the consultation on 12 July 2002, I am not persuaded that this was the first occasion when the plaintiff complained of low back pain. I thought that the plaintiff was basically an honest young person. Though her recollection of matters of detail was sketchy, and her evidence was thus not particularly reliable, I thought that she was genuine. She had ample opportunity when giving evidence in chief to exaggerate the range and severity of her symptoms and I did not have the impression that she tried to do that at all. At the end of her evidence in chief, I was left with the impression of a relatively modest claim by a relatively uncomplaining plaintiff.

47. At the same time, I must take account of the fact that there is virtually no record of any complaints by the plaintiff of accident-related symptoms on the many occasions when she was seen at the Crawford Street Clinic and elsewhere during the period of two years after the accident.

48. By the end of his cross-examination, Dr Sukumar accepted that the plaintiff had probably recovered completely from her injuries, and that any continuing complaints were probably not accident-related. It seems to me that this view is correct, though I am satisfied that her symptoms persisted for considerably longer than the maximum period of three weeks which Dr Stevenson would have been prepared to accept.

49. One piece of evidence given by Dr Sukumar which I do accept is that the plaintiff comes from a cultural and ethnic background where it is common to find an abnormal perception of pain and abnormal emotional reaction to trauma and injury. Dr Sukumar has practised at Queanbeyan for some fourteen years. Queanbeyan has a large ethnic Macedonian community, and over the years Dr Sukumar has had many patients from that community including many who have suffered accidental injury.

50. I am prepared to accept that the plaintiff's immediate symptoms continued for six months and perhaps up to twelve months after the accident, though at a level which did not interfere with her attendance at school or her casual work with Westco Jeans. In the absence of other causative factors, I also accept that the accident and the consequent physical symptoms were causative of a mild adjustment disorder causing symptoms of anxiety and depression, and that this condition has persisted for considerably longer than the physical symptoms. Again, its level has been such as to interfere with the plaintiff's enjoyment of life at a social level but not with her studies or work. I am satisfied that by now the plaintiff has recovered from the effects of the motor accident and that any continuing problems she has are caused by other factors in her life.

51. In these circumstances it seems to me that a reasonable figure to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is $25,000, the whole of which I apportion to the past. I allow interest of $3,500, the damages being somewhat more heavily weighted towards the first six to twelve months after the accident.

52. The plaintiff lost a day or two from work after the accident. I allow $100 for those lost earnings, plus interest of $50. In the absence of any specific evidence about treatment expenses, I allow $200 plus interest of $100.

53. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has made out any claim for future treatment expenses or loss of earning capacity.

54. The components of the award are accordingly:

General damages:	$25,000
Interest thereon	$3,500
Economic loss:	$100
Interest thereon	$50
Treatment expenses:	$200
Interest thereon	$100
	$28,950

55. There will be judgment for the plaintiff for that amount.

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) numbered paragraphs are

a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Master.

Associate:

Date: 30 January 2006

Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr FMG Parker

Solicitors for the plaintiff: Gary Robb & Associates

Counsel for the defendant: Mr MA McDonogh

Solicitors for the defendant: Abbott Tout

Date of hearing: 13 October 2004; 22, 23 March 2005

Date of judgment: 30 January 2006