Court believes woman exaggerated injuries after fall on the job

A FORMER Shortwood Teachers’ College employee, who sustained back injuries during a fall on the job in 2011, had $1.5 million shaved off the $4 million in general damages she was seeking after the Supreme Court held that she exaggerated her impairment.

The money was being sought for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities from April 24, 2013 to April 13 of this year. A three per cent interest was awarded for the period.

In addition to the $2.5 million for general damages, 42-year-old Shaunette Nunes, who was diagnosed with a two per cent whole-person disability, was awarded $1.8 million for handicap on the labour market and $195,000 special damages, with three per cent interest annually, from November 2, 2011, to April 13, this year.

According to Nunes, the injuries resulted in her experiencing difficulty bathing, using the bathroom, dressing and undressing, rising from bed at times, driving for long periods, lifting heavy objects, being intimate, and exercising.

The woman, who left the job in January 2014 and migrated to the United States, also reported that she has not worked since her last job in January 2020, because of her injuries and disability. She claimed the injury has restricted her to being able to work for only 20 hours weekly and, as such, was also causing her to suffer financially.

The security guard and commis chef gave evidence that she is losing US$1,600 per fortnight because she is unable to work as a security guard.

Nunes, who was employed at Shortwood as a pantry maid, sued the college’s board and the attorney general in April 2013, claiming that she had been deprived of the ability to work and carry out daily domestic functions.

Judgment was entered in Nunes’ favour after the defendants failed to comply with a court order to file their witness statements and summary by April 22, 2020.

Nunes was injured in November 2011 after falling on a ramp while walking to the dining room at the institution, and was immobilised for a short while as a result of the pain.

Dr Clifford Soares initially diagnosed her with a contusion of the back as an X-ray showed mild scoliosis and early degenerative changes in the spine. However, it was unclear to the court whether the finding resulted from the fall.

NOT LIFE-THREATENING

Another doctor, who saw Nunes nine days after her fall, Dr Clinton Boyd, said that while she had significant tenderness in the muscles of the thoracic area, there was no deformity, swelling or laceration. He diagnosed her with soft-tissue contusion and prescribed medication for pain and inflammation.

Nunes, however, returned on November 30, insisting that the pain was not easing.

An MRI, which was ordered along with physiotherapy, did not detect any abnormality, but Nunes was adamant that she was experiencing pain.

The doctor believed that Nunes’ injuries were not life-threatening as there was no deformity, dislocation, permanent or irreparable damage sustained and he anticipated full recovery.

Physiotherapist Robert McDonald also diagnosed Nunes as having traumatic low-back pain, scoliosis and degenerative changes to the spine when he saw her in December. However, five months after undergoing physiotherapy, Nunes reported that the pain had stopped and did not return for her follow-up session, claiming financial difficulties.

During a visit to Jamaica six years after the incident, Nunes consulted with Dr Melton Douglas, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

She complained then of experiencing pain in her back, aggravated by sitting for long periods, lifting heavy objects, having sexual intercourse, and carrying out her domestic chores.

AMOUNT UNREASONABLE

Nunes gave her pain score as 8 out of 10, claiming that she could not work for five days consecutively and that she had to lie stretched out on the ground, presumably to get relief.

She was examined and Douglas found that she had a normal gait and could tip-toe walk with ease, although she had stiffness on forward flexion.

An MRI showed age-related degenerative changes, but the doctor concluded that the pain could be a result of the abnormalities seen on the scan, which the fall could have caused to become symptomatic.

As a result, Nunes was diagnosed with chronic lumbosacral strain and assessed as having two per per cent partial permanent disability (PPD).

But Justice Tania Mott Tulloch-Reid, in the judgment of the damage assessment hearing published last month, said: “I observed Ms Nunes in the witness box. Based on her evidence and demeanour in the box, I, at times, felt she was exaggerating how the injuries affected her.

“ ... I believe that while Ms Nunes had some pain and suffering as a result of her fall, I do not believe that the suffering she says she experienced was as extensive as she has tried to make the court believe,” she added.

The judge, however, said that she believes that Nunes experienced pain between November 2011 and March 28, 2012, but was feeling better by March 28.

Additionally, she said it was possible that certain activities could have aggravated Nunes’ injury and accepted the two per cent PPD rating, which she believed suggested that the injuries sustained were not very serious.

Nunes’ lawyer, Richard Reitzin, had asked the court to award her client $4 million for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The judge found that the amount was unreasonable, but she also rejected a recommendation for $1.4 million from the defendant’s lawyer, Munroe Wisdom, noting that this was too low.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com