ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers at MacLean Personal Injury know Thoracic Outlet Syndrome is one of the most debilitating injuries a car injury victim suffers. Our ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers are often asked to explain what Thoracic Outlet Syndrome is and the MAYO CLINIC explains Thoracic Outlet Syndrome also known for short as “TOS” as:
Thoracic outlet syndrome is a group of disorders that occur when the blood vessels or nerves in the space between your collarbone and your first rib (thoracic outlet) become compressed. This can cause pain in your shoulders and neck and numbness in your fingers.
Vancouver ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers
When you suffer a thoracic outlet syndrome injury or any serious ICBC personal injury you can start the process to obtain piece of mind by hiring a top lawyer to recover the highest fair damage settlement for you and your family. The experienced and no nonsense lawyers at MacLean Personal injury meet with you for free and we are only paid when the case settles or you obtain judgment. Toll free 1-877-602-9900.
ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers Help You Obtain Treatment and Justice
The Society For Vascular Surgery explains treatments and surgical techniques to resolve the damage from TOS
- Specialized physical therapy and injections to relieve muscle spasm may resolve your symptoms.
- If symptoms are severe and persist and you are a good candidate for surgery, a procedure called thoracic outlet decompression is the next step.
- If surgery is not suitable for you or does not relieve your symptoms, you will want to consider ongoing medication to manage pain.
In the recent BC Supreme Court case Manoharan v. Kaur a woman who was just 4 courses short of obtaining her CGA designation when she was hit while driving slowly in a designated left turn lane. The other driver was solely at fault for pulling out from a small mall and driving into the victim’s car. The top ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers at MacLean Personal Injury note how the symptoms this victim suffered mirror what typical victims of Thoracic outlet syndrome or “TOS” face. It impairs your enjoyment of life and can ruin your career. To make matters worse you may lose hundreds of thousands of dollars of income and you and your family’s financial security may be jeopardized.
ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers Explain Recent Decision Involving Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers explain the symptoms that can be associated with TOS Thoracic Outlet Syndrome:
 Dr. Brenda Lau has been a practising anaesthesiologist in British Columbia since 2004 and specializes in pain management. Her diagnosis of the plaintiff’s condition after the accident is as follows:
- The non-specific left neck pain, upper back pain, and symptoms related to left functional thoracic outlet syndrome and myofascial contractures have had improvements from the combined Botox and Magnesium injection therapy. However, at most this is lasting about two months.
- Pressure hyperalgesia and allodynia improved, but still affecting the left face, neck, left arm, and to a lesser extent the right arm as well.
- Persistent myofascial pain partly due to a combination of:
- Spinal anatomy changes and referred pain.
- Poor work ergonomics.
iii. Disturbed sleep.
- Immune factors including glial cell dysfunction.
- Central sensitization.
- Significant bowel side effects of constipation due to the Buprenorphine patch.
- Previously disturbed mood has improved.
- Persistent sleep problems.
- Previously noted frontal headaches are resolved.
ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers Explain Pain And Suffering Damages For TOS
When you have thoracic outlet syndrome are injured you often suffer excruciating pain numbness and psychological distress. Damages for this pain and how it prevents you from enjoying life, being active, socializing and relating to friends and family are called non-pecuniary damages.
III. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
 In Karim v. Li, 2015 BCSC 498, Abrioux J. wrote in paras. 120 to 122:  Non-pecuniary damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of amenities. The compensation awarded should be fair to all parties and fairness is measured against awards made in comparable cases. Such cases, though helpful, serve only as a rough guide as each case depends on its own unique facts: Trites v. Penner, 2010 BCSC 882 at paras. 188-189.  The framework for the assessment of non-pecuniary damages was outlined by the Court of Appeal in Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34:  The inexhaustive list of common factors cited in Boyd [v. Harris, 2004 BCCA 146] that influence an award of non-pecuniary damages includes:
- Non-Pecuniary Damages
(a) age of the plaintiff;
(b) nature of the injury;
(c) severity and duration of pain;
(e) emotional suffering; and
(f) loss or impairment of life;
I would add the following factors, although they may arguably be subsumed in the above list:
(g) impairment of family, marital and social relationships;
(h) impairment of physical and mental abilities;
(i) loss of lifestyle; and
(j) the plaintiff’s stoicism (as a factor that should not, generally speaking, penalize the plaintiff): Giang v. Clayton, 2005 BCCA 54. The assessment of non-pecuniary damages is necessarily influenced by the individual plaintiff’s personal experiences in dealing with his or her injuries and their consequences and ability to articulate that: Dilello v. Montgomery, 2005 BCCA 56 at para. 25.
 The plaintiff’s loss of her pre-accident function and activities as well as her pain and suffering has been substantial. Much of her previous activities are no longer available to her. Her relationship with her husband has been seriously disrupted. Her capacity to work, which was the source of much of her enjoyment, as well as income, has been markedly diminished. Her social arrangements have been impaired. And the effects of the accident injuries have included a loss of ability to concentrate and to engage in intellectual pursuits. In short the quality of the plaintiff’s life has been much diminished by the accident injuries and her prognosis while not entirely bleak is nevertheless not favourable. Notwithstanding Dr. Craig’s report of a discrepancy between the plaintiff’s “pain behaviours” and her objective testing, I accept that the plaintiff’s complaints are genuine.  I assess non-pecuniary general damages in the sum of $170,000.
ICBC Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Lawyers Explain MVA Related Income Loss also called Pecuniary Damages
 As discussed earlier in these reasons the plaintiff’s prognosis for recovery is guarded. Her medical condition has “plateaued”. Natalie Allende, an occupational therapist who performed a functional capacity evaluation of the plaintiff, expressed the opinion that the plaintiff is employable as an accountant or office manager only part time. It is my view that this diminished employability is likely to continue indefinitely through to the plaintiff’s ultimate retirement.  Abrioux J. in Karim, supra, wrote the following at paras. 146 to 149:
 The applicable principles for assessing loss of future earning capacity are as follows:
 While proof of a substantial possibility is not a heavy onus, it is an onus that must be met for an award of damages under this heading to be justified: Kim v. Morier (sub nom Kim v. Tigounov), 2014 BCCA 63 at para. 7. This translates into a realistic possibility of economic consequences: Kim at para. 8.  There are two possible approaches to assessing loss of future earning capacity: (i) the earning approach (Pallos), or (ii) the capital asset approach (Brown). Both approaches are correct and their appropriateness in the circumstances depends on whether the loss can be quantified in a measurable way: Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140.  The earnings approach involves a form of math-oriented methodology such as (i) postulating a minimum annual income loss for the plaintiff’s remaining years of work, multiplying the annual projected loss by the number of remaining years and calculating a present value, or (ii) awarding the plaintiff’s entire annual income for a year or two: Pallos at 271; Gilbert at para. 233.
- the standard of proof is simple probability and events are weighted according to their relative likelihood: Athey at 470;
- a plaintiff is entitled to real and substantial possibilities of loss as quantified by estimating the chance of the loss occurring: Athey at 470; Steenblok v. Funk (1990), 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 133 at 135 (C.A.);
- the valuation of the loss of earning capacity may compare what the plaintiff probably would have earned but for the accident against what he or she will probably earn in his or her injured condition: Milina v. Bartsch (1985), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 33 at 93 (S.C.), aff’d (1987), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 99 (C.A.);
- the overall fairness and reasonableness of the award must be considered: Rosvold at para. 11;
- the role of the court is to assess losses based on the evidence, not to calculate them mathematically: Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353; Pallos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1995), 100 B.C.L.R. (2d) 260; Pett v. Pett, 2009 BCCA 232; and
- allowances must be made for the contingency that the assumptions upon which the award is based may prove to be wrong: Milina at 79.
 To determine the damages to which the plaintiff will be entitled for loss of future earning capacity it is necessary to determine what she actually will earn in the future and subtract that sum from the $800,000 described above. In my view, she is likely to work only part time and it is my opinion that she has lost about one half of her ability to earn income. In reaching this conclusion I have considered that the plaintiff will probably become a CGA in her late 50s. That will be considerably later in her working life than most professional accountants achieve and she will have relatively few years to take advantage of that designation. Notwithstanding that she will probably eventually become a CGA I remain of the view that she has lost about one half of her pre-accident capacity to earn an income between the date of the trial and her eventual retirement from the workforce. The result is that I assess the plaintiff’s damages for loss of future earning capacity at the sum of $400,000.