Although I have the impression that the plaintiff encounters difficulties in her daily life, in practice she functions in a manner similar to her before the accident, and no clear evidence of significant functional impairment has been brought, other than her testimony and the testimonies of the witnesses on her behalf. The plaintiff does not receive special treatments following the accident, does not take painkillers and injection medication, and does not receive mental health treatment. In fact, the treatment that the plaintiff receives in order to cope with her pain is medical cannabis treatment, starting in 2024.
- To this must be added the fact that during the course of the plaintiff's testimony I got the impression that she tends to exaggerate her difficulties and limitations, and that determinations regarding the plaintiff's reliability should also be expressed. As determined in the Dachnas case, the expression of the difficulties of reliability must be given "in the award of compensation by way of minimization and even by way of reduction."
- Given all of this, taking into account all the circumstances, including the employment picture, the experts' determinations, the testimonies and the evidence that emerges from the NII documents, I find it appropriate to set the rate of functional impairment caused to the plaintiff in a causal connection to the accident at 10%.
- Once the plaintiff's medical and functional condition has been determined, I will now turn to a discussion and a decision on the extent of her damages and the quantification of the heads of damage.
The damage caused to the plaintiff
- For convenience, the following are the basic data:
The plaintiff was born on February 14, 1980;
Date of accident: April 19, 2018;
The plaintiff's age at the time of the accident: 38 and 2 months;
The plaintiff's current age: 46 and 2 months;
Medical disability due to the accident: 15.5%;
Functional impairment: 10%.
The parties disagree regarding the plaintiff's losses in each of the heads of damages, with considerable differences, the main of which stems from the dispute over the extent of the medical disability and the extent of the functional impairment, as well as on the basis of the wage for calculation. The parties' arguments will be discussed below.