Woon Hok Fah v Zheng Xiaohua and another

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeDorothy F M Ling
Judgment Date31 January 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] SGDC 55
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date31 January 2020
Docket NumberDC Suit No. 3073 of 2015, DC/AD 70 of 2018
Plaintiff CounselMr Ng Kwong Loong (except,Ms Sunita Netto, with Mr Samuel Tee (on 31 January 2020) (M/s Island Law LLC)
Defendant CounselMr Nigel Bogaars (M/s Bogaars & Din)
Subject MatterDamages,Assessment,Personal Injuries
Published date18 March 2020
Deputy Registrar Dorothy F M Ling:

This matter came before me for the assessment of damages for injuries sustained as a result of a traffic accident.

BACKGROUND1

The male Plaintiff was a prime-mover driver when he met with the traffic accident on 3 February 2013 at around 9.20pm. He was 51 years old then. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff suffered various injuries.

Interlocutory judgment was entered on 25 April 2017 in the Plaintiff’s favour at 90%. I have assessed the damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff and I now render my decision on the same.

HEADS OF CLAIM / COUNSEL’S SUBMISSIONS ON QUANTUM

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant have submitted their respective amounts for the various of claim. I have displayed them in table form for easy reference. The table listing the injuries also took in the amendments that the medical experts corrected of their reports. These include: “Left Right forearm radius fracture”, “Left Right hand 5th metacarpal fracture”; and “Right Left hand 1st metacarpal fracture”2

The heads of claim and the amounts submitted are as follows:

Heads of claim Amount submitted by
Plaintiff Defendant
A. PAIN & SUFFERING
1. Left hand 1st metacarpal fracture (thumb) S$ 6,000.00 S$ 4,000.00
2. Right hand 4th and 5th metacarpal fractures S$ 5,000 x 2 = S$ 10,000.00 S$ 4,000 x 2 = S$ 8,000.00
3. Right forearm distal radius & ulna fractures S$ 25,000.00 S$ 8,000.00
4. Right scapular fractures (AGREED) S$ 6,000.00 S$ 6,000.00
5. Left proximal femur (upper thigh/hip fracture) S$ 22,000.00 S$ 10,000.00
6. Right proximal tibia (knee) fractures S$ 12,000.00 S$ 9,000.00
7. Loss of consciousness S$ 1,500.00 S$ 500.00
8. Post-concussion syndrome (giddiness) and amnesia S$ 4,000.00 S$ 1,000.00
9. Nightmares, flashbacks and increased risk of psychiatric disorders S$ 6,000.00 S$ 500.00
10. Permanent cognitive impairment S$ 25,000.00 S$ 5,000.00
11. Comminuted facial fractures with oral and maxillo trauma involving [various parts of the face, jaw, etc.] S$ 45,000.00 S$ 15,000.00
12. Permanent diminished sensation over the right side of face S$ 4,000.00
13. Left facial nerve paralysis S$ 3,000.00
14. Mild enophthalmos on the right eye (displacement of eyeball) S$ 4,000.00
15. Through and through skin laceration at upper right eyebrow (AGREED) S$ 1,000.00 S$ 1,000.00
16. Almost complete severance of portions of tongue with several deep lacerations (AGREED) S$ 2,500.00 S$ 2,500.00
17. Multiple scarring at [back of left ear, right radius, base of left thumb, left hip, left thigh, right tibia] S$ 10,000.00 S$ 8,500.00
18. Loss of 5 lower anterior teeth with 3 teeth mobile S$ 18,500.00 S$(12,500+1,500) = S$ 14,000.00
19. Lung contusion (AGREED) S$ 1,000.00 S$ 1,000.00
20. Permanent loss of sense of smell S$ 16,000.00 S$ 7,000.00
21. Permanent loss of sense of taste S$ 15,000.00 S$ 6,000.00
SUBTOTAL OF PAIN & SUFFERING S$ 237,500.00 S$ 107,000.00
B. LOSS OF AMENITIES S$ 8,000.00 S$ 0.00
C. LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY S$ 76,881.42 S$ 10,000.00
D. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES S$ 35,000.00 S$ 10,000.00
E. SPECIAL DAMAGES
1. Pre-trial loss of income (AGREED) S$ 11,123.00 S$ 11,123.00
2. Medical expenses S$ 24,174.95 S$ 14,192.21
3. Transport expenses S$ 735.00 S$ 600.00
SUBTOTAL OF SPECIAL DAMAGES S$ 36,032.95 S$ 25,915.21
TOTAL DAMAGES @ 100% S$ 393,414.37 S$ 152,915.21
TOTAL DAMAGES @ 90% LIABILITY S$ 354,072.93 S$ 137,623.69
QUANTUM DETERMINATION PAIN & SUFFERING

As Plaintiff Counsel astutely observed,3 the Plaintiff’s injuries spanned a spectrum of medical disciplines: orthopaedics, otorhinolaryngology, dentistry, psychology/psychiatry and ophthalmology.

For some of the injuries the Plaintiff sustained, the parties have managed to come to an agreement on the quantum of damages. For purposes of this Decision, I shall focus only on the injury claims which are in contention.

Orthopaedics: ‘Dr Victor Seah v Dr Lee Soon Tai’

Considering that many of the Plaintiff’s injuries were bone and joint-related, the evidence of the two opposing experts in this area is particularly pertinent. Dr Victor Seah was the medical doctor who attended to the Plaintiff when he was admitted for treatment, whilst Dr Lee Soon Tai was engaged by the Defence to medically review the Plaintiff. Both doctors were clear that their duty to assist the court was paramount and would override their obligation “to the person from whom [they] had received instructions or by whom [they] are paid”.4

In examining the Plaintiff, both doctors had used the “active range of motion” test5 which is “the standard used by the Ministry of Manpower [(MOM)] for their “A Guide to the Assessment of Traumatic Injuries and Occupational Disease for Workmen’s Compensation”. As explained by Dr Seah, and agreed by Dr Lee,6 ‘active range of motion’ “refers to the ability of the patient to move the affected joint by his own muscular power and pain threshold without the use of any external force”.7

Dr Victor Seah’s medical findings

Dr Victor Seah examined and treated the Plaintiff many times,8 to the tune of “more than 10 times for a whole year and until [his] last review with [the Plaintiff] in 12 November 2014”.9 He had provided 2 reports, one dated 25 September 2013 and the other 30 December 2014. He also adopted the report of Senior Consultant Hand Surgeon, Dr Vaikunthan Rajaratnam’s report made on 20 October 2014 into his evidence-in-chief. 10

In his first report of 25 September 2013,11 Dr Victor Seah reported that the Plaintiff suffered certain restricted motions, such as in his wrist and hand. There was also numbness, stiffness and pain in the same areas. These were observed despite Dr Seah acknowledging that the Plaintiff had “recovered well”.12 It is likely that Dr Victor Seah had compared the Plaintiff’s condition at the time of the making of the report, with when the Plaintiff was first admitted for treatment.

Dr Victor Seah, and subsequently also Dr Lee Soon Tai, recognised that the Plaintiff sustained residual disabilities and numbness, for example, of his left thumb. Dr Victor Seah considers these “deficits”13 as “likely to be permanent”.14 The doctors further opined that the Plaintiff had “optimally recovered and there is no further recovery anticipated”.15 The same was opined about his lower limb, and particularly his knee flexion: that, the Plaintiff would have reached maximum potential of recovery when still in his – Dr Victor Seah’s – care.16 Dr Victor Seah calibrated the Plaintiff’s permanent incapacity of the upper limbs at 20%17 whilst that of his lower limbs at 18% (sic. See: PD28-29.)

Dr Lee Soon Tai’s medical findings

During the examination under Dr Lee Soon Tai, the Plaintiff had maintained that he still suffers from “numbing pain” in parts of his hand, and leg (tibia). This is stated in Dr Lee Soon Tai’s report of 5 April 201818 which made reference to the medical examination of the Plaintiff on 22 December 2016.19 This was also the only time that Dr Lee Soon Tai had seen and examined the Plaintiff for the injuries sustained on 3 February 2013.

According to Dr Lee Soon Tai’s report, the Plaintiff was generally much recovered. His incapacities were also reported as being less serious than as reported by Dr Victor Seah. Dr Lee calibrated the Plaintiff’s upper limbs injuries at 10%.

The preferred report – Dr Victor Seah’s or Dr Lee Soon Tai’s?

Given the difference in the medical opinions of the two orthopaedic doctors, and particularly in the calibration of the Plaintiff’s injuries, the Court has to decide which medical opinion is to be preferred.

Plaintiff Counsel proferred four reasons why Dr Victor Seah’s medical opinion should be preferred: Dr Victor Seah’s medical examination was contemporeaneous as he had treated the Plaintiff upon his admission into the hospital, compared with Dr Lee Soon Tai’s almost 4 years later; Dr Victor Seah’s medical examination was “more comprehensive as he saw the Plaintiff at spaced intervals over a span of nearly two years”20 compared with Dr Lee Soon Tai who only examined the Plaintiff once; Dr Victor Seah’s medical opinion was corroborated by Dr Vaikunthan Rajaratnam who was the doctor who continued to follow up with the Plaintiff after he was discharged from the hospital; and Dr Lee Soon Tai had rendered his opinion beyond his scope of orthopaedic expertise when he ventured to opine on the Plaintiff’s memory impairment and dental treatment. Although Dr Lee admitted to this, he pressed the point that “[a]s a doctor, we are trained in all aspects”.21 This is nevertheless in contravention to Order 40A rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court.

A short word on this fourth reason: besides contravening Order 40A rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court, I agree with Plaintiff Counsel that Dr Lee’s opining on an area beyond his expertise compromises the reliability of his opinion on his area of expertise. Aspersion was in fact cast by Plaintiff Counsel when he submitted:

During re-examination, seemingly to emphasize how thorough his re-examination was, [Dr Lee Soon Tai] remarked that he had spent more than an hour… . One wonders how much of this time was actually spent on orthopaedics injuries.

As it would be obvious now, I am persuaded by Plaintiff Counsel’s above reasons for why the Court should prefer Dr Victor Seah’s medical opinion. I would, however, like to elaborate on why I consider the contemporaneity...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT