Carseldine v Bandag Manufacturing Pty Ltd [1990] QSC 385

10 _o 30 40 50 60 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION BEFORE MASTER WHITE BRISBANE, 22 NOVEMBER 1990 I F' ~- .'. ,-;::··-. ~,(',~:-' c~:; :;: ;? ~_!4E =;7 I c~·. · , · ... , . , :-:-, ... "',"'' 1 , I . . . -. -· . r ", 2.__ °( / /t' I 7t7 l I ·---· w. - No. 4472 of 1988 (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Chief Court Reporter,Court Reporting Bureau.) BETWEEN: CARSELDINE Plaintiff -and- BANDAG MANUFACTURING PTY LTD Defendant JUDGMENT MASTER: In this action I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $221,270. That is the final figure after apportionment and the l deductions of payments to the Workers Compensation Board. I order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the action, including reserved costs. I publish my reasons. I I , 1 b _ -Govt. Printer, Qld. 1 ( 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 1 of 19 -- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND No.4472 of 1988 Before Master White BETWEEN: CARSELDINE Plaintiff AND: BANDAG MANUFACTURING PTY. LTD. Defendant REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MASTER WHITE Delivered the twenty-second day of November, 1990 CATCHWORDS: COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: DAMAGES - Personal injuries - quantum - male fitter aged 41 fell from ladder onto his head - Fall traumatized pre-existing degenerative spinal condition - severe lumbar and neck pain - severe depressive illness Pestorius - Plaintiff McDougall - Defendant McNamara & Associates (Ipswich) - Plaintiff Morris Fletcher & Cross - Defendant HEARING DATES: 12th & 13th November, 1990 -- 2 of 19 -- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND BETWEEN: CARSELDINE BANDAG MANUFACTURING PTY. LTD. JUDGMENT - MASTER WHITE No. 4472 of 1988 Plaintiff Defendant Delivered the twenty-second day of November, 1990 In this action quantum only is an issue. The parties have settled liability whereby the plaintiff is to bear ten per cent and the defendant ninety per cent of the responsibility for the injury sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born on 31st March, 1945 and is now aged 45 years. On the 30th July, 1986 he fell from a ladder onto his head in the course of his employment as a fitter with the defendant at Wacol. He was conveyed by ambulance to the Ipswich Hospital. On admission he was observed to have a five centimetre laceration over the centre of his forehead. He complained of pain in his upper back and tailbone. On examination he had tenderness over his cervical spine and lower lumbar spine. X- rays taken of his skull were normal and those of his cervical spine showed a fracture of the spinos processes of C4 and possibly CS. Those of his lumbar sacral spine showed a possible fracture of the anterior superior margin of the body of L3 although it was not possible to tell whether this was new or old. Other X-rays were normal. He was admitted to hospital, his laceration was sutured under a local anaesthetic and he was treated with bed rest and gradual mobilization. He was -- 3 of 19 -- 2 discharged on the 4th August with a soft collar and analgesics to be followed up at outpatients and by his general medical practitioner. The following month was a period of intense pain for the plaintiff especially in his neck region. He saw his general practitioner Dr. Price within a week of discharge and about three weeks later he commenced at outpatients where he was seen by Dr. D. Walters, orthopaedic surgeon, regularly. By early September the pain had settled a little and the plaintiff was approached by his employer to consider returning to work. He did return to work but not to his previous occupation and ended up in the store cleaning, lifting, putting things away in racks and general tidying up. He was wearing a surgical collar and found the work very hard on his neck and back. He stayed for three days but returned to his general practitioner and was issued with a medical certificate indicating unfitness for work. His employment was terminated on the Friday of that week. The plaintiff then started physiotherapy at the hospital and this continued for some weeks. At the same time he saw Dr. Price and Dr. Walters regularly. In about October 1986 he was prescribed a rigid brace which he wore for about six months. It was described as a four-poster brace which had a plate on the chest, back, back of shoulders, under the chin and the back of the head held in place with four posts and was strapped onto the plaintiff. He wore it virtually 24 hours a day although occasionally at night he would replace it with a soft collar. X-rays taken in September 1986 showed marked disc degeneration at C4/C5 and C5/C6 with degeneration causing stenoses of the intervertebral foraminae at C3/C4 and C4/CS and C6/C7 on both sides. It is the opinion of the medical practitioners and not disputed that those changes antedated the injury sustained in the fall by quite some time. In early 198~ the plaintiff consulted -- 4 of 19 -- 3 his general practitioner complaining of depression. Dr. Price concluded in his report dated 1st April, 1987 (Exhibit 4) that this depression was brought about by pain, financial hardship and unemployment. In mid-1987 the plaintiff applied for registration with the C.E.S. on the recommendation of his medical advisers. It was thought that he might be able to undertake light cleaning work, guard duty or some similar light work. He applied for a maintenance position at the Ipswich Hospital, and although interviewed was not offered the job. This is the only employment which he has sought since sustaining his injuries. In about September 1988 the plaintiff commenced treatment from the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service at the Ipswich Hospital which he attended for approximately 12 months. That included hydrotherapy and the use of a T.E.N.S. machine (transcutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation) which gave him some limited relief. He had earlier been given this during physiotherapy at the Ipswich Hospital. He was assessed by a psychologist in September 1988 and she was of the view that he was depressed (Exhibit 1 8) . As a result thereof, he was referred by his general practitioner to Dr. K. Piaggio, psychiatrist, who prescribed certain drug treatment. This gave him limited temporary relief. Dr. Piaggio first saw the plaintiff in November 1988 and thereafter monthly. The consultations increased to fortnightly and then returned to monthly visits. The plaintiff's depressive condition continued to deteriorate during 1989 ~nd 1990. He had thoughts of suicide. The plaintiff experienced chest pain and palpitations in early 1989. These had the appearance of being cardiac in origin and he was seen on a number of occasions at the Ipswich Hospital and by specialists. In due course these symptoms were attributed to some of the drugs prescribed by Dr. Piaggio. -- 5 of 19 -- 4 The plaintiff received Workers' Compensation to November 1987 when he received a lump sum payment and thereafter received sickness benefits. invalid pension. Early this year he commenced to receive an The plaintiff lives at home with his wife and the younger two of his four children who are aged 19 and 10. The plaintiff is deeply depressed, experiences significant pain in his neck and lower back and spends much of his day after he can be persuaded to leave his bed, doing a little reading, gardening and watching a little T.V. His wife's evidence was that he is withdrawn, irritable, often retires to his room downstairs and occasionally after an angry outburst will leave the house in the car and be away all day. She says she does not believe that he goes far as they have little money for petrol. He does some voluntary work once a fortnight at his local church. It is necessary to look at the plaintiff's pre-accident history. He was in the R. A. A. F. for six years where he was trained as an engineer fitter. Thereafter he spent about four years working in motor shops as a mechanic and maintenance fitter and six months as a welder, fitter and maintenance operator. Between 1977 and 1979 he had several jobs, mostly as a maintenance fitter and then for about six years until 1986 he was employed by Queensland Alumina as a fitter. He spent six months thereafter working as maintenance fitter for Marpa Pharmaceuticals and had been employed by the defendant for some three and a half weeks prior to sustaining his injuries. The evidence was that he had left Marpa Pharmaceuticals in an effort to improve his financial position by going to a better paid employment. The morning of his injury he was taken onto the permanent staff at the defendant's business. It is clear then that he has spent virtually the whole of his working life in the -- 6 of 19 -- 5 area of maintenance fitting/turning and welding. He has no experience in the clerical field. It is equally clear that throughout his working life he has been in remunerative employment. Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff by two former work supervisors. Jae Van de Griendt was the plaintiff's supervisor at Marpa Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Van de Griendt described the plaintiff as a willing and conscientious worker and although he was only employed at Marpa Pharmaceuticals for a short period, he was said to be a likeable person: "nice company to work with". Trevor Baldock, a productions supervisor at Queensland Alumina, was the plaintiff's supervisor over periods from February 1984 to January 1986 when he worked at Queensland Alumina in Gladstone. The plaintiff was described by Mr. Baldock as "a very easy bloke to get along with" and "a very good worker, a very hard worker. He did his job very well". He was also described as "a happy-go-lucky sort of bloke, easy to get along with, wife always joking, laughing". of the plaintiff, gave Mrs. Barbara Carseldine, the evidence as to her husband's personality prior to sustaining his injuries and described the kind of family life that they had. She described him as a person who would sit and talk and assist with other people's problems. To use her words: "to me he was a damn nice bloke". Before the plaintiff's injuries, the family was close, engaged in outdoor recreation, particularly fas.sicking for gems, collecting orchids in the bush, went on picnics. The plaintiff was a particularly keen gardener. The plaintiff's daughter, Boni ta Carseldine, who lives at home gave evidence as to family life prior to her father's accident in 1986. She said that family life was good, that they went out together, did things as a family, that her father talked to them, played games such as cricket with them, -- 7 of 19 -- 6 that they were "really sort of a happy family, really close". The picture is quite the reverse now. The plaintiff presented in the witness box as an overweight man of fairly short stature, neat in appearance but with flat affect. This became more marked as his evidence proceeded. I had no doubt but that he was an honest witness and saw no evidence of any attempt to exaggerate or promote his claim. He admitted that family life generally and sexual life in particular with his wife was very poor. He does ' . not feel that he is getting any better under his psychiatrist's treatment. When asked if he could cope with a job, he said "no" . It was quite clear that the plaintiff was extremely worn down by his pain and the situation in which he found himself. When asked in cross-examination why he was depressed he answered, "Pain, inactivity, loss of money". The main issues for consideration in this case are the extent to which the fall from the ladder in 1986, the subject of these proceedings, exacerbated the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerate neck and spine, how long the plaintiff would have continued working before the disabling effect of the degenerative spine made that work impossible to perform had he not been injured and whether the plaintiff's reactive depressive condition will improve after the resolution of this litigation. The plaintiff gave evidence that prior to sustaining his injuries at work, he occasionally felt the gradual onset of pain in his tailbone brought on by lifting heavy things. He said that after a couple of days of rest, usually over the weekend, he would be right .to start the working week again. He said ,tha t this pain would only show up once every six or twelve months and that it had been about twelve months since he had felt any pain in .that region prior to the accident. He first experienced pain there some years before his accident.· He also gave evidence that -- 8 of 19 -- 7 he experienced a certain stiffness in his neck on occasions which had manifested itself a few years before the accident. It usually occurred after a heavy day's work. He denied that he experienced any pain just stiffness of the muscles of the neck about once in twelve months. Dr. R.L. Atkinson, neurosurgeon, reported on the plaintiff's condition (Exhibit 16) and gave oral evidence. He was of the view that the plaintiff sustained a crush fracture at L3 which was consistent with having occurred in the fall in 1986. It was his opinion that it is not causing much distress now and is unlikely to do so in the future. Subsequent evidence by Dr. Walters (transcript p.77 line 27) was to the effect that there was no fracture at L3 when looked at on better X-rays and what was evidenced was a degenerative bony process ante-dating the fall. This appears not to cause the plaintiff much pain. Dr . . Atkinson was of the view that the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative changes at L4/5 and L5/S1 were typical of a workman of his age. Such change exposed the plaintiff to the risk of disc injuries in the event of trauma. A matter of some controversy was whether the plaintiff experienced pain in his lower lumbar region shortly after the fall. If he did, it was more likely than not that the trauma "stirred up" the degenerative area causing it to become symptomatic. It was put to the plaintiff in cross-examination that he had not complained of the lower lumbar pain until almost two years after the fall. In that event the expert medical evidence of Dr. Atkinson, Dr. Walters and Dr. Watson was that such pain could not· be causally linked to the trauma sustained in the fall. Although Dr. Walters maintained that the plaintiff had not complained to him of lower lumbar pain until almost two years after the fall, the evidence of the plaintiff was that he -- 9 of 19 -- 8 felt immediate pain in the tailbone region and that he used hot water bottles in an attempt to alleviate that pain from time to time, but that his main concern was with the overwhelming pain in his neck. He maintained that he mentioned the lower lumbar pain regularly to Dr. Walters on the many visits that he made. Dr. Walters equally maintains that he would have noted such pain had it been mentioned to him. I accept the plaintiff as a truthful witness and, as r·have observed above, acquit him of any charge of seeking to advance his cause. On the other hand, the reports from Dr. Walters were no doubt done in something of a hurry and he was consultant orthopaedic surgeon at a public hospital. It may well have been that since the lumbar pain did not dominate the plaintiff in the first year or so, he did not make much of it. Of determinative eviden tiary value in resolving this conflict is the report from the Ipswich Hospital Board (Exhibit 1) dated 10th July, 1989 which states that on admission "his main complaint was pain in the upper back and his tailbone .... and local tenderness over cervical spine and lower lumbar spine." Accordingly, I accept that the plaintiff did experience pain in his lower lumbar spine immediately after the fall. Dr. Atkinson was of the view that compared to many working men whom he had seen in the Ipswich area, particularly coal miners, the degeneration in the plaintiff's cervical spine was not very advanced. He regarded it as within the 50 percentile range for that age group. On the other hand, Dr. Watson was of the view that the changes present in 1986 were well in excess of what one would have accepted as normal, (Exhibit 22). That was also Dr. Walter's opinion. It was Dr. Atkinson's view that such degeneration can remain asymptomatic for many years. However, it must be borne in mind that the plaintiff was beginning to -- 10 of 19 -- 9 experience symptoms, both in his neck and in his lower lumbar spine prior to the fall in 1986 and that he engaged in quite heavy work. Dr. Watson's opinion (Exhibit 23) was that the plaintiff might well have sought to cease working by age 55. Dr. Walters thought that somewhere between 5 or 10 years might have elapsed before the plaintiff complained of significant pain without any intervening traumatic events. In oral evidence Dr. Watson's opinion was that the plaintiff would not have seen out the normal working span: "I would have thought that he would have fallen far short of that ... by natural progression of degenerative processes" ( transcript p. 86) . He admitted that his estimate of the plaintiff's working life ceasing at 55 was an informed guess. The balance of the evidence seems to suggest that at best, the plaintiff might have continued to work at his present occupation of fairly heavy work until the age of 55 absent any trauma which would have disabled him in the way in which he is now disabled. The past employment history of the plaintiff and his rapid return to work after a previous injury leads me to suppose, in combination with his personality profile given by Dr. Piaggio, that he was a conscientious breadwinner. I have thus formed the view that the plaintiff would have attempted to stay at work as long as he possibly could and, bearing in mind the whole of the evidence as to the possible progress of his naturally occurring degeneration, I fix 55 years as the age at which the plaintiff would have been likely to cease work. The other matter of some concern is the depressive illness from which the plaintiff has suffered increasingly since sustaining his injuries in 1986. It was sought to be put on behalf of the defendant that this was simply a case of litigation neurosis and that the plaintiff's prognosis, so far as his -- 11 of 19 -- 10 depressive illness was concerned, was quite good once the resolution of the litigation has occurred. This was not however the evidence of Dr. Piaggio who has been treating the plaintiff now for•a number of years. It was Dr. Piaggio's opinion that the plaintiff has become more intensely depressed during this recent year than previously with thoughts of suicide. He thought that the litigation proceedings over this past year had made the plaintiff's condition worse, but that the plaintiff was unlikely to improve after the resolution of the litigation except that the financial pressures would be removed. It seems that since the depressive symptoms have been present for so long in the plaintiff it will be much more difficult to cure him. He considered that the plaintiff will need ongoing treatment and counselling for numbers of years. Whilst Dr. Piaggio accepted, in cross-examination, that the resolution of the litigation as well the improvement in the family's financial position will mean that there will be a certain degree of improvement in his psychiatric status it would not result in anything like a complete cure. He would not be drawn further than to say that the plaintiff's prognosis would be better but not significantly better. I accept Dr. Piaggio' s prognosis - he has had the experience of treating the plaintiff since early 1988. After seeing the plaintiff in the witness box, it is easy to accept that the mere resolution of the litigation will only go some way to resolving his psychiatric problems. It was suggested to Dr. Piaggio that since the plaintiff has a personality which is vulnerable to depressive reaction to injury and pain of this kind, that he may have succumbed to such depressive illness in any event should the natural course of his degenerative condition have taken place without intervening trauma. Dr. Piaggio, whilst not entirely rejecting this, was -- 12 of 19 -- 1-1 of the view that since the resultant pain would have occurred at a later stage in the plaintiff's life when his family responsibilities would be less and would have evolved gradually, it would have been less likely to give rise to depressive reaction. I will consider then the particular heads of damage that make up the plaintiff's case. PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF THE AMENITIES OF LIFE PAST AND FUTURE It is clear from what I have set out above that prior to sustaining his injuries on the 30th July, 1986 the plaintiff was a hard working, happy family man. He took his recreation in a modest way but obviously in a way that was entirely satisfactory both to himself and to his family. He took particular pleasure in his garden and collecting specimens in the bush. A particular hobby was fossicking for gemstones. All that has come to an end. He was in intense pain immediately following the injury and for about a month thereafter. The pain eased back a little but has remained at a fairly constant level over many years. Indeed, in the case of his lumbar spine it has become worse. He has constant neck pain extending into his head and into his shoulders. This occurs at least weekly and lasts all day. He has pain in his right arm passing down into his fingers. He has .low dull sacral pain which occasionally becomes worse and radiates down his left leg. He further suffers from severe depression which is a source of great distress to himself and to his family. His weight has increased by some ten kilograms. There is no doubt that had life taken its normal course without the intervention of trauma, he would have been disabled by a degenerative condition throughout his spine and perhaps other parts of his body by the time he was about 55 if not earlier. -- 13 of 19 -- 12 However, the onset of this pain would have been gradual and the major financial pressures of his family would have been considerably reduced by that time. It is unlikely that he would have succumbed to the depressive illness which now besets him and from which he may not entirely recover. Taking those factors into account and the fact that from some non-compensable source he may have received sufficient trauma to bring about the earlier onset of disabling symptoms associated with his degenerative condition, I assess the plaintiff's general damages for pain and suffering and loss of the amenities of life at $35,000 of which $15,000 is for the past and which will attract interest of 6% per ~nnum for 4.5 years. PAST LOSS OF EARNINGS At the date of his injury the plaintiff had been in employment with the defendant for some three weeks as a fitter. He had immed~ately before sustaining his injuries been invited to join the permanent workforce of the defendant. His ordinary rate of pay was $373.50 which has been calculated at 21 .90% above the award rate applicable to a mechanical engineer (fitter) as at the 30th July, 1986. Mr. Norbert Calabro, accountant, prepared two reports on behalf of the plaintiff (Exhibits 19 and 20) setting out the arithmetical calculations asso.ciated with the plaintiff's past loss of earnings. He has assumed that his rate of pay with the defendant would have increased in line with the award rate at a constant above award rate of nearly 22%. No evidence was led as to the current rates of pay for a person in the same position as the plaintiff with the defendant. However, it should be noted that this assumption was contained in the report of Mr. Calabro dated the 10th October, 1990 and in the possession of the defendant at least prior to the hearing. There -- 14 of 19 -- 13 was no submission by Mr. McDougall that this was a factually erroneous assumption to make. The plaintiff gave evidence that he worked overtime for the defendant between 4 to 5 hours per week. This was overtime necessitated by the nature of the plaintiff's work and the defendant's business. During the week he was engaged in routine maintenance work and in making of guards for machinery. On Saturdays he was required to carry out maintenance on the machines which remained in operation during the ordinary working week. It thus seems safe to conclude that this kind of overtime was overtime inherent in the nature of the plaintiff's work for the defendant rather than due to a need to maintain productivity commitments. It can be concluded that this overtime was likely to be a continuing requirement of the defendant and would have been available to the plaintiff on a regular basis had he remained in employment with the defendant to the date of trial. Mr. Calabro has based his calculations on that information set out at paragraph 7 of Exhibit 19 and also in Schedule 2.2. On that basis the net loss of earnings is calculated at $82,076 to 31st October, 1990 and I take into account that an extra three weeks would have been earned to date of judgment. Whilst it seems to me that had no other intervening events occurred, the plaintiff would have remained in employment until the date of trial, I must nonetheless make some discount for the possibility that the plaintiff might have sustained some non-compensable injury which would have precluded him from earning income. I should also make some discount for the fact that the overtime may not indeed have continued to be available at that rate and over the entire period there being no evidence that it has and accordingly conclude that a fair assessment of past loss of earnings to date of judgment is $70,000. It is appropriate that -- 15 of 19 -- 14 part of the plaintiff's past loss should attract interest. He was in receipt of Workers' Compensation payments until the end of 1987 when he received a lump sum payment and thereafter has been in receipt of a pension. Without making any precise arithmetical calculation, I propose to award the plaintiff interest on $20,000 of his past loss of earnings at 6% over the entire period. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY Mr. Calabro has calculated the plaintiff's future loss of earning capacity based on his loss of a notional net salary based on the rates that he used to calculate the plaintiff's past loss to various retirement ages. The plaintiff's net earnings have then been discounted at a rate of 5% per annum. Mr. Calabro had regard to the life tables. This is, of course, an exercise which is regularly done in relation to future loss of earning capacity by Courts. I have concluded on the evidence that the plaintiff was likely to have remained in employment to age 55 years. The arithmetical calculation using the 5% tables to age 55 amounts to $1 6 5 I 71 4 • That amount should be discounted for the usual contingencies and the chance that the plaintiff might have become disabled by non-compensable trauma earlier. Taking into account all of those factors I award the plaintiff $130,000 as representing his loss of earning capacity for the future. I have also taken into account that at some stage the plaintiff may utilise his residual earning capacity in some small way. LOSS OF SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS PAST AND FUTURE Mr. Calabro has also had regard to the compulsory productivity superannuation contribution requirement of 3% of an employee's wages which applied to the engineering award (the -- 16 of 19 -- 15 relevant award for the plaintiff) from the 3rd April, 1989. The contribution of 3% applies to the basic wage paid but does not apply to overtime payments. Mr. Calabro has calculated the plaintiff's loss of the past superannuation benefits on his base earnings to the 31st October, 1990 at $1,121. The past loss of superannuation benefits must be discounted in a similar way to the discounting of his past wages. I will assess that loss at $750. I have accepted that it is likely that the naturally occurring degenerative process would have taken the plaintiff out of the workforce by age 55 years. Those benefits to age 55 years are calculated using the 5% tables and amount to $5,481. I must discount the calculation of his future loss superannuation benefits for the usual contingencies plus the fact that the plaintiff may have sustained some noncompensable trauma which would have taken him from the workforce earlier than 55 years. A reasonable sum to represent the plaintiff's loss of future superannuation benefits is $4,750. SPECIAL DAMAGES The plaintiff and defendant have agreed as to special damages and they are as follows: Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service repayment Medicare repayment Workers' Compensation expenditure Travelling to treatment Miscellaneous expenditure TOTAL $5,431.76 $3,854.30 $5,782.00 $ 514.10 $ 284.00 $15,866.16 Interest is awarded on the sums expended in travelling to treatment and on the miscellaneous expenditure at 6% per annum -- 17 of 19 -- 16 for 4.5 years which amounts to $215. FUTURE MEDICAL CARE The plaintiff and defendant have agreed that should I have formed the view on the evidence that future psychiatric care is required by the plaintiff as a result of his injuries sustained on the 30th July, 1986 then that is represented by $4,000 for future psychiatric care, $1,000 for medication associated therewith and $1,000 for future general practitioner and travelling expenses costs giving a total of $6,000. On the evidence I have formed the view that such future treatment will be necessary and I allow the amount of $6,000 for future medical care. CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the plaintiff's damages: Pain and suffering and loss of the amenities of life past and future Interest at 6% per annum for 4.5 years on $15,000 Loss of past earnings to judgment Interest on $20,000 of past loss of earnings at 6% per annum for 4.5 years Loss of future earning capacity Loss of past superannuation benefits Loss of future superannuation benefits Special damages Interest on $798.10 at 6% per annum for 4.5 years Future medical care and medication Fox v. Wood component TOTAL $ 35,000.00 $ 4,050.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 5,400.00 $130,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 4,750.00 $ 15,866.16 $ 215.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 2,743.99 $274,775.15 -- 18 of 19 -- 17 In accordance with the agreement reached between the parties the plaintiff is entitled to 90% of those damages as assessed which amounts to $247,297.63. From that, payment must be made to Workers' Compensation Board in the sum of $26,027.52. That leaves $221,270.11. I round that figure off to $221,270. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $221,270. I will hear counsel as to costs. -- 19 of 19 --