Is My Ligament Tear A Minor Injury?? New Guidance from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal In Personal Injury Cases

The recent ruling by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (NSCA) in the case of Cameron v Pratt, 2023 NSCA 90, is significant for injured individuals in Nova Scotia. The decision provides additional clarity on the definition of minor injury under governing legislation (the Insurance Act and its Regulations).

In Cameron v Pratt, the plaintiff, Robert Pratt, sustained injuries in an August 3, 2017 motor vehicle accident. These injuries included abrasions, bruising, broken ribs, soft tissue injuries to the neck and back, concussion, as well as tears to the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of his knee. Mr. Pratt brought a personal injury claim against the at-fault driver, David Cameron, and the vehicle owner. The case proceeded to a six-day trial in March of 2021. Mr. Pratt was successful, and the presiding judge awarded a total $119,239 in damages to Mr. Pratt.

The Defendant, Mr. Cameron, appealed the award for damages, arguing in part that the amount awarded was too high under the Insurance Act legislation. Mr. Pratt cross-appealed, arguing in part that the amount awarded for his left knee injury was too low because the trial judge considered the ligament tears to be minor injuries under the legislation.

An important question was raised and clarified at the Appeal: Do ACL and LCL tear injuries fall under the definition of “minor” under the Insurance Act and its regulations?

Minor Injury Cap

In 2010, the Nova Scotia government amended the Insurance Act to place a limit or “cap” on compensation available to accident victims for pain and suffering arising from injuries classified as "minor." This cap is subject to adjustment for inflation annually based on the Consumer Price Index. The 2024 adjustment has set the cap at $10,400.

Section 113E of the Insurance Act defines “minor injury” as:

(i)              a sprain;

(ii)            a strain, or

(iii)           a whiplash-associated disorder injury,

caused by that accident that does not result in a serious impairment.

“Serious impairment” is defined in the Regulations under the Insurance Act as a sprain, strain or whiplash injury which results in a substantial inability to perform work, education or activities of daily living.

Determining whether an injury meets the definition of “minor” can involve a complicated legal analysis, as is shown in the Cameron v Pratt case.

Ligament Tears and Minor Injury Legislation

People often think of ligament tears in the knee as serious injuries, which often require surgery and other medical interventions and can cause lasting problems. In Mr. Pratt’s case, he suffered knee pain and weakness and testified that the knee would “give out” on him at times and that he was unable to crouch down. His doctor anticipated Mr. Pratt would require a knee replacement surgery in the next 10 to 15 years.  

The trial judge found that Mr. Pratt’s ACL and LCL tears fell under minor injury legislation. The judge looked to Section 10(3) of the Regulations which includes torn ligaments in the definition of a third-degree sprain. Therefore, Mr. Pratt’s ACL and LCL tears were minor as defined by the legislation. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s analysis.

Once an injury is found to fall under minor injury legislation, the inquiry does not end there. As the NSCA reviewed in Cameron v Pratt, the next step is to assess whether the injury results in a serious impairment. Unfortunately for Mr. Pratt, the NSCA agreed with the trial judge that the left knee injury did not result in a serious impairment. The NSCA quoted with approval the trial judge’s reasoning that Mr. Pratt’s knee injury did not prevent him from performing the essential tasks of his regular employment, education program or normal activities of daily living.

It is helpful to have this guidance from the NSCA. Our firm frequently represents Plaintiffs dealing with sprains, strains, and whiplash-related disorders and we routinely engage with insurers regarding whether the Plaintiff’s injury comes within the minor injury legislation. This ruling offers much-needed clarity in such situations.

If you have questions about what your claim could be worth, or are having difficulty with an insurer who insists your claim is minor under the legislation and want to explore your options, reach out to Carter Simpson today for a free consult. Where appropriate, we will work with you to obtain the medical evidence needed to show that your injury is causing serious impairment.

Carter Simpson has prepared this document for information only.  It is not legal advice. You should consult Carter Simpson about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. Carter Simpson excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.