Nesci v Trenka - [2000] WADC 53

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: NESCI -v- TRENKA [2000] WADC 53

CORAM: COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS

HEARD: 17 DECEMBER 1999

DELIVERED : 23 FEBRUARY 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1612 of 1998

BETWEEN: ASSUNTA MARIA NESCI
Plaintiff
AND
JOANNA MARGARET HELENA TRENKA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Personal injuries - Motor vehicle collision - Neck and back injury - Past and future medical expenses - Acupuncture.

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 as amended

Result:

Damages assessed in the sum of $15,205.50

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K J Bonomelli
Defendant: Mr B C Sierakowski

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Anthony Torre & Monaco
Defendant: Brian C Sierakowski

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS:

Introduction

The plaintiff was born on 17 December 1937 and is 62 years of age. On 22 May 1996 the plaintiff was a passenger in a car which was stationary on the Kwinana Freeway when it was struck in the rear by a car driven by the defendant ("the collision"). The defendant has admitted that the collision was caused by her negligence.
The plaintiff has alleged that as a result of the collision she has sustained injuries including a whiplash injury to the neck, a soft tissue injury to the shoulder and an injury to the lower back. The plaintiff has also alleged that as a result of the collision and her injuries she has endured pain and suffering and undergone a loss of enjoyment of life. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff has sustained any compensable injury and damage.
This matter is one of assessment of damages. At the time of the collision the plaintiff was not working or intending to work and so she has not claimed any past or future economic loss. This assessment requires me to consider three heads of damage, namely past medical expenses, future medical expenses and general damages.

The collision

The plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a Mazda 929 being driven by her husband on the Kwinana Freeway. For some reason the cars in the same lane and in front of the plaintiff's car all came to a stop. The plaintiff's husband stopped the Mazda 929 at the end of the stationary line of traffic. Shortly thereafter the defendant drove her car into the rear of the stationary Mazda 929. The force of the collision dislodged the plaintiff's seat from its mountings and it fell backwards. The plaintiff said that she also fell backwards. The defendant's car was then struck to the rear by the car travelling behind it. The force of this collision caused the defendant's car to again collide with the rear of the Mazda 929. The plaintiff was scared and frightened after the collision and remained in her car until the police arrived. She left the scene of the collision in a taxi. It cost $10,000 to repair the damage to the Mazda 929.

The plaintiff's pre‑accident history

The plaintiff came to Australia from Italy in 1954. She married in 1956 and spent the next six years with her husband on a farming property at Donnybrook. Her husband then purchased a delicatessen business in Katanning and they lived there for about 19 years. The plaintiff worked in the delicatessen.
The plaintiff and her husband left Katanning after the business was sold and enjoyed a holiday in Italy. They then came to Perth where the plaintiff's husband purchased a couple of delicatessen businesses, one after the other, and again the plaintiff worked in the delicatessens. After the second of these businesses was sold the plaintiff and her husband developed a group of shops and leased them. It seems that the idea was to retire partly at least on the income from the leases. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was giving short term help to the lessee of a delicatessen in the group of shops on how to run the business.
In April 1996 the plaintiff attended on Dr Atlas, her general medical practitioner, and complained of headaches and pain in her right hip. An x-ray of the plaintiff's cervical spine taken on 3 April 1996 showed mild facet joint osteoarthrosis bilaterally at the C3-4 and 4-5 levels. The plaintiff received two or three sessions of physiotherapy treatment from Mr Pullella, a physiotherapist, and medication for these symptoms. The plaintiff gave evidence that she suffered from headaches now and again before the collision. She described them as "normal" and distinguished them from headaches after the collision which were more frequent and severe. She gave evidence that she no longer suffered from right hip pain by the time of the collision.

The plaintiff's injuries and the medical evidence

The plaintiff gave evidence that the collision occurred at about 6.00 pm. By the time she arrived home at about 9.00 pm she was shaking and had a headache. She could not sleep that night because of pain in the neck and the back of the head. By the morning after the collision she began to experience pain to the left hip, lower back, left leg down to her foot and the left shoulder. She attended on Dr Atlas on the morning after the collision and was prescribed medication for the pain. Dr Atlas arranged for x-rays to be taken and referred the plaintiff to Mr Pullella for physiotherapy treatment.
From the consultation on 23 May 1996 Dr Atlas formed the opinion that the plaintiff had sustained soft tissue injuries to the neck and thoracic spine. The plaintiff told Dr Atlas during a review on 25 July 1996 that she was still experiencing pain in her left arm, neck and having occasional headaches. She was sleeping well with the assistance of medication. In a report dated 30 July 1996 Dr Atlas expressed the opinion that he did not anticipate the likelihood of any permanent disability. He thought that the plaintiff had sustained an aggravation of a pre‑existing osteoarthritis of the cervical spine.
The plaintiff received physiotherapy treatment over a period of about two to three months after the collision. The physiotherapy treatment did not provide much pain relief and so Dr Atlas referred the plaintiff to Mr Graziotti, a specialist in pain management and anaesthetics.
The plaintiff first attended on Mr Graziotti on about 1 November 1996. Mr Graziotti was of the opinion that there were two sources of pain. One was occipital headaches radiating from the upper cervical spine to the upper occiput and the other was lower cervical pain radiating from the lower cervical spine being worse on the left side and sometimes into the left shoulder. These pains were aggravated by a prolonged standing or sitting and heavy work. Mr Graziotti was of the opinion that the plaintiff's problems related to the C2/3 facet joint which is commonly injured in collisions of the sort the plaintiff was involved in. He was also of the opinion that it may have been symptomatic prior to the collision but deteriorated as a result of the collision. Mr Graziotti arranged to perform C2/3 facet joint injections and suggested that the plaintiff cease her physiotherapy treatment.
In November 1996 Mr Graziotti performed bilateral C2/3 facet joint injections. On 29 November 1996 he reported that the plaintiff had two days of almost complete pain relief after the injections before a recurrence of pain. This suggested to Mr Graziotti that the C2/3 facet joint was the source of the plaintiff's problems and he recommended proceeding to a radio frequency rhizotomy. Mr Graziotti performed the rhizotomy on the plaintiff on 4 December 1996.
The plaintiff gave evidence that she felt very sick for a month after the rhizotomy. Mr Graziotti gave evidence that some discomfort could be anticipated from a rhizotomy because the procedure involves burning nerves to desensitise them which in turn produces scarring. Mr Graziotti gave evidence that the fact that pain returned to the plaintiff's neck a short time after the rhizotomy also suggested that other areas of the neck may be implicated in the pain or that the rhizotomy was not as complete as it could have been. He said that it was a difficult matter to interpret.
The plaintiff did not attend on Mr Graziotti again until a review on or about 3 April 1997. The plaintiff told Mr Graziotti at the review that her neck pain had slowly increased to be back to "its normal state". As at 3 April 1997 Mr Graziotti thought that the plaintiff may respond to a C2 ganglion procedure. He thought it wasn't appropriate to pursue this line of treatment because the plaintiff had already been referred for laser acupuncture treatment and it was not a good idea to pursue two different lines of treatment at the same time.
Mr Graziotti gave evidence that the plaintiff had a 5 per cent disability of the neck which reflects the combination of her pre‑accident condition and her accident related injury.
The plaintiff attended on Mr Gope, an orthopaedic surgeon, on 3 June 1997. The plaintiff told Mr Gope that she had a headache immediately after the collision. She also told him that the pain was worse the next morning and spread to her shoulders and left arm and that the lower back pain and pain along the left hip region started about two or three days later. The plaintiff also reported to Mr Gope that she was receiving laser acupuncture treatment which was providing some improvement.
In a report dated 3 June 1997 Mr Gope expressed the opinion that the plaintiff sustained soft tissue ligamentous injury of the cervical and lumbar spine superimposed on minor pre‑existing degenerative changes and facet joint arthrosis at the L5/S1 level. He noted the degenerative changes at C3/4 and C4/5 which areas he stated were obviously symptomatic prior to the collision because of the fact that there was a need for x-rays to be taken. Nevertheless it appeared to him that most of the plaintiff's symptoms were related to the motor vehicle accident. He thought that treatment should be directed to pain relief of the cervical and lumbar spine and should be of a non‑invasive nature. Mr Gope also stated in his report that the prognosis of the neck and lower back pain remains fairly guarded in spite of the fact that there was no striking radiological change. It seems that Mr Gope considered the collision to have been severe in the context of injuries of the type complained of by the plaintiff.
On 26 March 1997 Dr Atlas referred the plaintiff to Dr Koh, a general medical practitioner and fellow of the Australian Medical Acupuncture Society. In the letter of referral dated 24 March 1997 Dr Atlas requested Dr Koh to treat the plaintiff for "her soft tissue injuries - cervical and lumbar strain, subsequent to her motor vehicle accident of 24 May 1996".
In a report dated 10 July 1997 Dr Koh stated that the plaintiff complained to him of cervical pain associated with arm pain. She also had headaches and pain in the left leg extending to the foot. Her neck pain and headaches were constant. Dr Koh stated in his report that the plaintiff was using two Mersyndol tablets and two to four Panadol tablets on a daily basis. At the time the plaintiff performed household work slowly and with difficulty and her symptoms were aggravated by mopping the floor, hanging laundry on the line and prolonged sitting. The plaintiff's accident related symptoms caused her to stop providing assistance to the lessees operating a delicatessen/fruit and vegetable shop in premises developed by the plaintiff and her husband.
Dr Koh stated in his report dated 10 July 1997 that the plaintiff had sustained soft tissue trauma to her cervical, thoracic and lumbo-sacral spine. As at that date the plaintiff's neck pain was not as severe and she was not waking up at night with pain. Between 26 May 1997 when Dr Koh reviewed the plaintiff and 10 July 1997 the frequency of her headaches decreased and generally she was able to reduce her intake of analgesics.
In the two to three month period after the collision the plaintiff received physiotherapy treatment from Mr Pullella on about 30 occasions. The defendant's insurer paid for all of these consultations. Between 26 March 1997 and 24 October 1997 the plaintiff received about 35 acupuncture treatments from Dr Koh at a total cost of $1,637.50. All of these treatments were paid for by the defendant's insurer. From and including 7 November 1997 the defendant's insurer refused to pay for any further acupuncture treatment given by Dr Koh to the plaintiff. Notwithstanding such refusal to pay the plaintiff continued to receive acupuncture treatment on a fairly regular basis. Between 7 November 1997 and 9 December 1999 inclusive the plaintiff received acupuncture treatment from Dr Koh on 36 occasions for a total cost of $1805.50.
On 11 November 1998 Dr Edelman reported on the necessity of the plaintiff to continue with acupuncture treatment. Dr Edelman noted that the physiotherapy treatment in the two to three months after the collision did not produce any relief at all. He also noted that the facet blocks did not really produce much in the way of pain relief. The plaintiff presented to him as being quite agitated and worried about the defendant's insurer not paying for any more acupuncture. The plaintiff told him that she felt that the acupuncture treatment was all that was keeping her going. The plaintiff also complained to Dr Edelman of continuing discomfort in her neck and radiating out towards the left shoulder.
Dr Edelman concluded from the plaintiff's treatment history and the plaintiff's own account to him about her symptoms that the acupuncture treatment was keeping the plaintiff relatively symptom free and should continue.
In a report dated 1 September 1999 Dr Koh expressed the opinion that the plaintiff's frequency of treatment should decrease significantly over the next few months and he hoped that she could discontinue the acupuncture treatment within four to six months. Dr Koh last saw the plaintiff on 9 December 1999. He gave evidence that her condition fluctuates from time to time. He gave evidence that the future was a bit unpredictable. He said that the plaintiff would probably need treatment over the next six to 12 months. Beyond that he could not be certain. He added that it was very much a matter for the plaintiff to attend on him when the pain was bad. He expected that the plaintiff would require about one or two treatments per month over the next six to 12 months. The current rate for acupuncture treatment is $52 per session.
Dr Koh gave evidence that he is currently treating the plaintiff's neck, both shoulders, the left lower back and also the left leg. Dr Koh gave evidence that the pain in the plaintiff's shoulders was referred from the neck and that she did not receive an injury to a shoulder itself. Dr Koh was not aware that the plaintiff had experienced cervical pain and headaches before the accident. Accepting that this was the case he gave evidence that the collision aggravated a pre‑existing neck condition.
Dr Koh gave evidence that from the time he first commenced giving the plaintiff acupuncture treatment until November 1998 in quantitative terms her condition improved by about 50 per cent. He said that the acupuncture treatment since November 1998 has not produced much progress but has provided the plaintiff with some relief to enable her to continue with her daily life with a reasonable amount of comfort. The plaintiff gave evidence that she proposes to continue to receive acupuncture treatment from Dr Koh. She conceded that the pain relief from acupuncture treatment was only transient but said that some relief was better than none. She gave evidence that her pain levels have decreased since she has been receiving acupuncture treatment from Dr Koh. She said that on some days she can do things without pain and on others she feels really terrible and needs to take Panadeine and lie down.

The plaintiff's credibility

The plaintiff impressed me as a witness. She presented as a relatively quiet, perhaps shy, person who over a lengthy period of time has presented herself for work when the need was there. I have no doubt at all that she is a very honest person. She impressed me as someone who would attempt to do the best she could to cope with what difficulties she had without wanting to make any fuss.

Findings on the plaintiff's injuries and the medical evidence

The neck

I accept the plaintiff's evidence that prior to the collision her health was generally "pretty good". I also accept her evidence that although she attended on Dr Atlas in April 1996 because she was suffering from headaches, her condition had settled down within the short time thereafter before the collision. Further I accept the plaintiff's evidence that her headaches after the collision were more severe than those before it.
Further to the evidence of each of Dr Atlas, Mr Gope, Mr Graziotti and Dr Koh considered alone and in combination I find that the collision aggravated the plaintiff's pre‑existing degenerative cervical condition at the C3-4 and C4-5 levels. I also accept the evidence of Mr Graziotti that the plaintiff's C2/3 facet joint was injured as a result of the collision and I find that it has played and continues to play a part in the plaintiff suffering from severe headaches.
I accept Mr Graziotti's evidence that the plaintiff has a 5 per cent disability of the neck which is made up by the combination of her pre‑existing condition and injuries from the collision. In light of the plaintiff's evidence that her headaches have been more severe since the collision and Mr Graziotti's evidence that her disability was mainly the result of the collision I find that the collision is the main cause of the disability to the plaintiff's neck and the accompanying symptoms and also her headaches.

The lower back

The defendant does not admit that the plaintiff suffered any lower back injury as a result of the collision.
The earliest dated medical report in evidence is the report of Dr Atlas dated 30 July 1996. There is no mention in this report of the plaintiff complaining to him of any low back pain on 23 May 1996 or before he prepared the report. When Dr Atlas first referred the plaintiff to Mr Graziotti, which was four months after the collision, he made no mention of low back pain in his letter of referral. Mr Graziotti gave evidence to the effect that sometime in about July 1997 Dr Atlas referred the plaintiff to him because she was complaining of back pain. Mr Graziotti said that by the time he saw the plaintiff she told him that she didn't have any back pain and so Mr Graziotti did not take the matter any further.
When Dr Atlas referred the plaintiff to Dr Koh, his letter of referral dated 24 March 1997 expressly referred to "cervical and lumbar strain". On 3 June 1997 the plaintiff told Mr Gope that she started to feel lower back pain and pain along the left hip region about two or three days after the collision.
The plaintiff can't recall what symptoms she complained about to Dr Atlas on the day after the collision. There is an inconsistency between the plaintiff's evidence that she started to feel low back pain on the morning after the collision and Mr Gope reporting that she told him it started two or three days after the collision.
Weighing all of this evidence together with my positive view of the plaintiff I accept her evidence and find that she started to have low back pain on the morning after the collision. The plaintiff attended on Mr Gope about a year after the collision and taking this into account I think that it is of no real consequence that she may have told him that the low back pain started two or three days after the collision rather than the morning after. Either way the plaintiff was indicating that the low back pain started shortly after the collision.
On this issue I also think that it is important to bear in mind that the plaintiff had pain, which was probably of varying intensity, at various times and in various areas of her body. It may well be in a situation such as this that when the plaintiff attended on medical practitioners she spoke to them about the main focus of her pain at the time. Mr Graziotti's evidence that Dr Atlas referred the plaintiff to him because she was complaining of back pain and that she had none when he saw her is an example of the point I am making.

Further to all of this Dr Atlas, Mr Gope and Dr Koh have all related the plaintiff's lower back pain to the collision.
Mr Graziotti gave evidence that in his opinion the plaintiff's low back symptoms were not related to the collision. It is necessary to appreciate that this opinion was based on an understanding that the plaintiff first complained about pain in her lower back about one year after the collision. My acceptance of the plaintiff's evidence that she had lower back pain on the morning after the collision eliminates the basis upon which Mr Graziotti reached his opinion. This finding is in no way adverse to Mr Graziotti. In fairness to Mr Graziotti he was not given a comprehensive history. Further, it seems to me that this aspect of the matter was first raised with him when he was in the witness box. Before then he did not need to give any consideration to whether or not the plaintiff's lower back symptoms were related to the collision because his treatment was confined to the plaintiff's neck.

The left hip

The plaintiff complained about right hip pain in April 1996 before the collision. I accept her evidence that she no longer had any right hip pain by the time of the collision. I also accept her evidence that the hip injury caused by the collision was to the left hip and unrelated to her earlier hip problem.

The left shoulder

It is clear from the evidence of Mr Graziotti, Dr Edelman and Dr Koh that the pain in the plaintiff's left shoulder is referred pain from the cervical spine. The pain in the left shoulder is not the result of an injury to the shoulder itself. I find accordingly.

The plaintiff's current symptoms

Further to the evidence of the plaintiff and Dr Koh I find that the plaintiff continues to suffer symptoms in the neck, shoulder, lower back and left hip and left leg. I accept the plaintiff's evidence and find that she has days when she can do things without pain and other days when she feels unwell and needs to lie down.

Past medical expenses

The key issues under this heading are whether it is reasonable for the defendant to be required to pay for the acupuncture treatment received by the plaintiff from Dr Koh on and after 7 November 1997 and if so the amount.
There is no issue with the fact that the plaintiff received acupuncture treatment from Dr Koh on 35 separate occasions before 7 November 1997. This was after she had also received physiotherapy treatment on about 30 separate occasions from Mr Pullella. The defendant's position is "enough is enough" and that the acupuncture treatment is not providing any long term relief.
Mr Graziotti gave evidence that acupuncture works for some patients and not others. He said that he advises his patients that if they get no response within a couple of weeks then it is not worth persisting with. His experience is that patients usually get transient relief. He added that whether a patient continues with such treatment if it only provides transient relief depends on who is paying for it or the financial resources of the patient.
I accept the plaintiff's evidence to the effect that the acupuncture treatment provides her with transient relief. Indeed she said that acupuncture is the only thing that gives her relief. No medical practitioner has ever told the plaintiff that she should stop requesting and receiving acupuncture treatment. Indeed the evidence points the other way. It must have been within Dr Atlas's contemplation when he referred the plaintiff to Dr Koh that Dr Koh would probably give her acupuncture treatment. It was after the defendant's insurer refused to pay for any further treatment that Dr Edelman gave a written opinion that she should continue with it. Mr Graziotti deferred consideration of a C2 ganglion injection while the plaintiff was having acupuncture treatment. It was not suggested by Mr Graziotti when he gave evidence that it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to have continued with acupuncture treatment for as long as she has. Dr Koh is obviously of the opinion that the acupuncture treatment is worthwhile even though the relief is transient. Both Dr Koh and the plaintiff believe that the acupuncture treatment has decreased her level of symptoms and broken down the pain from being constant to intermittent.
For all these reasons I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has reasonably incurred the acupuncture expenses and the defendant should pay for them.
The defendant also complains that Dr Koh charges more for patients like the plaintiff where it is anticipated that a defendant's insurer will pay the fee than for a patient who is solely responsible for the fee. The current fee for a patient solely responsible for payment of it is $30 per session. From 7 November 1997 to the date of trial Dr Koh has charged the plaintiff between $48.50 and $52 per session. Dr Koh gave evidence that the fees he charges approximate those in the relevant AMA Schedules. There is no evidence to the contrary. There is no basis on the evidence for me to think that an insurer is being penalised rather than a patient with the sole responsibility to pay the fee is being given a discount.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the fees charged by Dr Koh are fair and reasonable. The outstanding fees for acupuncture treatment amount to the sum of $1805.50.
Dr Koh gave evidence that he also treated the plaintiff with some herbal medicines. On 11 occasions between 29 March 1997 and 30 August 1999 inclusive the plaintiff purchased herbal medicines from Dr Koh at a total cost of $205. The plaintiff gave evidence that she paid for these medicines and did not make a claim for reimbursement against the defendant's insurer because she did not know that she could. Other than evidence of the fact that the herbal medicine was dispensed and paid for there is no other evidence at all about the herbal medicine. In particular there is no detailed evidence on what it was for and whether it provided any relief at all. The paucity of the evidence is such that I am not satisfied that an allowance should be made for the herbal medicine.
I award the plaintiff the sum of $1805.50 for past medical expenses.

Future medical expenses

On the basis of Dr Koh's evidence that the plaintiff would probably need acupuncture treatment once or twice a month for the next six to 12 months at $52 per session the future cost would range from about $312 to $1248. Dr Koh could not be certain that the plaintiff wouldn't need acupuncture treatment beyond the next 12 months. This is understandable in the sense that we are dealing with a future possibility rather than a past or present fact. Some account should be made for the possibility that the plaintiff may require treatment beyond the next 12 months.
There is no evidence of the cost of a C2 ganglion injection. Mr Graziotti gave evidence that this form of treatment may provide the plaintiff with more than transient relief. Given that the plaintiff remains symptomatic she will most likely need to attend on her general medical practitioner from time to time and also resort to the use of medication for pain relief.
Doing the best I can I award the plaintiff $2000 for future medical expenses.

General damages

The plaintiff is entitled to general damages for the accident itself and for the consequent pain, inconvenience and other matters generally referred to as the loss of amenities.
The award of damages for loss of enjoyment of life and amenities generally requires a consideration of s3C of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 ("the Act"). This section imposes limitations upon an award of damages for non‑pecuniary loss and it applies to the present case. Section 3C(3) provides that the maximum amount of damages that may be awarded for non‑pecuniary loss is, at the present time, $219,000 and that that amount may be awarded "only in a most extreme" case.
I repeat all of my comments and findings previously expressed herein for the purpose of assessing general damages.
The plaintiff was involved in a serious collision which consisted of two impacts to the rear of the Mazda 929 in which she was a front seat passenger. The impacts were severe enough for her seat to be dislodged.
I repeat my comments on the credibility of the plaintiff. In my opinion this is one of those cases where the injured party is a relatively quiet sort of person who gets on with life as best she can no matter what the difficulties. In saying that I do not wish it to be misunderstood that I am putting her injuries into a higher category than they ought to be. The point is that it is always necessary to guard against underscoring the impact of injuries suffered by a person who has a relatively mild and stoic disposition.
The fact that this plaintiff has received physiotherapy and acupuncture treatment on many occasions does not change my view about her. In the plaintiff's case I think the frequency of such treatment is indicative of the severity of her symptoms and her genuine desire to obtain some relief.
For a brief period after the collision the plaintiff had problems sleeping. Her symptoms are relatively widespread. She has suffered and continues to suffer from severe headaches.
Prior to receiving the acupuncture treatment from Dr Koh the plaintiff had constant and severe pain. She still suffers from pain but it is now intermittent and less severe.
The plaintiff still needs to avoid repetitive bending and lifting heavy objects. She cannot dig or pull. This has severely reduced her capacity to work in the garden which was a great source of enjoyment for her before the collision. Her capacity to work in the home has been reduced. In about September 1998 the plaintiff and her husband sold their home of 10 years which had "a beautiful big garden" because the plaintiff could not cope with the necessary gardening and housework and they moved to smaller premises.
I place the plaintiff's case at 10 per cent of a most extreme case. This percentage of the maximum amount that may be awarded of $219,000 equates to $21,900. The provisions of s3C(5) requires an amount of this sum to be reduced by $10,500. I therefore award the plaintiff general damages in the sum of $11,400.

Summary of heads of damage

Past medical expenses  $1,805.50
Future medical expenses  $2,000.00
General damages  $11,400.00
Total$15,205.50

Conclusion

For all these reasons I award the plaintiff damages in the sum of $15,205.50 and give liberty generally to the parties to apply.