White v Kriukelis and AAMI

[2002] QDC 298

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

White v Kriukelis & AAMI [2002] QDC 298

PARTIES:

Leanne Michelle WHITE
Plaintiff

-v-

Alfonsos KRIUKELIS
First Defendant

and

Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited

ACN 004 791 744

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S:

D 1825 of 2001

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 & 17 October 2002

JUDGE:

O’Sullivan DCJ

ORDER:

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $154,579.59 TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS OF THE ACTION

CATCHWORDS:

Personal injury:

COUNSEL:

Mr R Lynch (for Plaintiff)

Mr R Corkery (for Second Defendant)

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson(for Plaintiff)

Dillons (for Second Defendant)

1. The plaintiff was born on 21 August 1972 and was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 18 September 2000 when her vehicle was hit by another vehicle doing an abrupt u-turn.

General Damages for Pain & Suffering

1. Immediately after the accident her left lower back started to hurt. Her neck started to hurt a lot within a few days. She had 7 weeks off work.

1. I find that the plaintiff has experienced continuing problems with her shoulder. No abnormalities were detected in ultrasound, x-rays, CT scan, nerve conduction studies, arthrogram and MRI.

1. Dr White diagnosed a musculo/ligamentous strain of rotator cuff and a disability of 5-10% of the whole person. Dr Boys considered that the impairment to the neck is minor, and secondary to the shoulder. In his report he assessed a 0-2% impairment of the upper extremity, but in cross-examination was prepared to agree it may be an impairment of 5 – 8%.

1. Dr Cameron found no neurological disturbance to account for the plaintiff’s ongoing neck and shoulder pain and headaches. He noted that the ‘lack of significant improvement is very unusual in view of the nature of the injury she sustained on 18 September 2000.’ He considered that if she has continuing problems these may be due to causes other than the accident. He considered that the headaches were suggestive of migraine, and were not related to the accident. He assessed complete recovery without ongoing impairment.

1. In contrast, Dr Todman considered that the headaches which were described by the plaintiff were descriptive of muscle tension type and were the result of the whiplash injury. Dr Todman considered that there is a 10% permanent disability of the whole person related to the cervical spine injury and a 7.5% permanent disability of the whole person related to post-traumatic headaches.

1. The Plaintiff has suffered considerable pain after the accident. She took mersyndol and endep. She continues to suffer pain in her shoulder every day; some days are worse than others. She has two different types of pain in her neck. She suffers headaches on average once a week. She takes one pack of Panadol per week and her partner gives her massages.

1. I find that the Plaintiff has suffered continuing serious problems  and pain. She has endured treatment from a range of medical practitioners,  and has had many sessions of physiotherapy. She has…