Chronic pain after a car accident is common, and a chronic pain claim is often worth far more than the original fracture or sprain. In December 2025 the Mike Murphy Law Group secured about $2.3 million for a young woman whose accident injuries turned into chronic pain, PTSD, a jaw disorder and repeated surgeries. The trial judge had awarded $325,000. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal found three legal errors and ordered the full amount.
That decision, Trainor v. DeArcos, 2025 NBCA 131, is the ruling that now governs chronic pain claims in this region, and it changes how a chronic pain claim gets valued going forward.
Chronic Pain After a Car Accident Grows From a Localized Injury
A fracture, a soft tissue injury or a minor impact can set off a chain of physical and neurological responses that becomes chronic pain weeks, months or years later.
In Trainor the plaintiff fractured her heel. The fracture changed how she walked, which loaded her other leg and hip. Over 18 months she developed pain across her body: back, neck, legs, arms and jaw. Medical and professional witnesses, ten in total, testified that the accident set off physical, emotional and cognitive symptoms that compounded over time.
The medical literature documents the pattern. A localized injury changes how the nervous system processes pain. Add the psychological effects of the crash, anxiety, depression, PTSD and broken sleep, and the result is generalized pain that reaches every part of daily life. Clinicians can measure it, and Canadian law compensates it.
Ten Witnesses Traced Ms. Trainor’s Pain to the Accident
The family physician documented the spread from heel pain to whole-body pain over 18 months. She explained that chronic pain means pain lasting years, and that a mental health condition makes pain worse, because a person with less developed coping skills feels its effect more.
The orthopedic surgeon described an “amplified response” to the heel surgery that he had not expected. The pain in the back, hips, thigh, head, neck and jaw that followed was new and not explained by the surgery. He contrasted it with her strong recovery from a major surgery in 2011, before the accident.
The psychologist and neuropsychologist tied her mental health conditions to her pain. The neuropsychological assessment found the accident “triggered the onset or exacerbation of physical, emotional, sleep and cognitive symptoms” and left her “more vulnerable and less capable of coping with additional stressors”.
That record is what put causation beyond dispute. The Court of Appeal held that chronic pain after a car accident is a foreseeable result of a collision, not something unusual or far-fetched.
Chronic Pain After a Car Accident Is Legally Compensable
Insurers and defence lawyers argue that chronic pain is too remote from the crash to be compensated. Trainor rejects that.
Negligence law does not require the driver to foresee the exact injury. Under the Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha v. Culligan, the question is whether a person of “ordinary fortitude” could foreseeably suffer the general type of injury. The Court of Appeal held that chronic pain, jaw disorders and secondary injuries after a car accident fall within that range.
The foreseeability analysis should have stopped once the trial judge accepted that localized pain was foreseeable. She went on to examine how the plaintiff’s own mental health history contributed to the chronic pain. That is a subjective test, and the law requires the objective one.
Pre-Existing Conditions Do Not Disqualify a Chronic Pain Claim
The standard defence is that the plaintiff’s earlier depression, anxiety, injury or learning disability is the “real” cause of the pain. Adjusters use it to cut or deny chronic pain claims.
In Trainor the defendant ran exactly that argument. The plaintiff had major depression in partial remission, borderline personality disorder and an earlier leg condition. The trial judge accepted it and the award fell from $2.3 million to $325,000.
The Court of Appeal rejected it completely.
The Thin Skull Doctrine Protects Vulnerable Plaintiffs
If someone negligently injures you, they pay for the full injury even if it is worse than an average person would have suffered. There is no discount for vulnerability.
The line is between a thin skull and a crumbling skull. A thin skull plaintiff had a condition that was latent and stable at the time of the crash, and recovers in full. A crumbling skull plaintiff had a condition already deteriorating, and the court reduces the award for the decline that would have come anyway. Even then, as the Supreme Court of Canada held in Athey v. Leonati, the doctrine cannot bar recovery.
Ms. Trainor’s conditions were managed and in partial remission. Her psychiatrist described her as stable 13 days before the collision. She was working. The Court of Appeal found a thin skull and ordered full damages with no reduction.
The Trial Judge Misapplied the Crumbling Skull Doctrine
The trial reasons said two contradictory things: that the pre-existing conditions were the “cause” of the chronic pain, and that they were “well managed” but left her at greater risk of pain becoming chronic. The second description is a thin skull. A crumbling skull needs evidence of active deterioration that would have caused harm without the crash, and there was none.
And even had the crumbling skull doctrine applied, the judge used it to deny the chronic pain claim outright. Under Athey it can only reduce an award by the measured risk. Denial was an error of law.
The Trainor Award Covered Five Heads of Damages
Chronic pain damages accumulate across several heads over a lifetime. In Trainor the $2.3 million award included:
- General damages of $200,000 for pain, suffering and loss of quality of life
- Past loss of earnings of $183,206 from the accident to trial
- Future loss of earnings of about $1.29 million to retirement, including management fees
- Housekeeping capacity of about $232,000, past and future
- Future care costs of about $403,000 for medication, therapy and supports
That is the career lost, the household help needed, the decades of medication and therapy, and the independence gone.
Five Steps Protect a Chronic Pain Claim
Each step below builds the record the court will read.
1. Report All Symptoms to Your Doctor
Headaches, jaw pain, broken sleep, widespread pain, anxiety, mood changes. Report all of it, even what seems unrelated to the first injury. The medical record is the claim. In Trainor years of consistent documentation from several clinicians proved causation.
2. Do Not Accept a Quick Settlement
Chronic pain takes months or years to show its full extent. Settle early and you settle for a fraction. The gap between $325,000 at trial and $2.3 million on appeal shows how far a chronic pain claim can be undervalued.
3. Keep Records of How Pain Affects Daily Life
A personal log of what you can no longer do at work, at home and in daily activity supports the housekeeping, future care and general damages heads. Family members who see the limits are witnesses.
4. Follow Your Treatment Plan
Courts ask whether the plaintiff took reasonable steps to manage the condition. Go to physiotherapy, take the medication, follow the advice. The standard is reasonableness, not perfection, but the defence will use gaps in treatment.
5. Contact an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer
A chronic pain claim needs specialist medical evidence, actuarial analysis and a firm grasp of causation law. Foreseeability, thin skull versus crumbling skull, and future earning capacity are misapplied often, by trial judges as well as adjusters. Trainor is the proof.
How Long Does a Chronic Pain After Car Accident Claim Take?
Longer than a typical injury claim, because the injury has to be documented over time. In Trainor the crash was in March 2014 and the appeal decision in December 2025, more than eleven years. Not every claim runs that long, but chronic pain develops slowly, and its effect on earning capacity and future care can only be measured after years of records.
The usual stages are 12 to 24 months of treatment and documentation, then independent assessments, actuarial analysis and mediation or settlement talks. If there is no settlement, the case goes to trial. Trainor went through trial and then appeal, which added years.
The limitation period in most Atlantic provinces is two years from the injury, or from the date you discovered the link between the crash and the pain. Miss it and the claim is barred whatever its merits.
Insurers Undervalue Chronic Pain After Car Accident Claims with Four Arguments
Adjusters argue that pain is subjective and cannot be verified, that gaps in treatment show it is not severe, that pre-existing conditions are the real cause, and that an early settlement is in your interest.
Trainor is the answer to each. The trial court, on the wrong law, awarded $325,000. The Court of Appeal, on the right law, ordered about $2.3 million. That seven-fold difference is why a chronic pain claim needs a lawyer who knows causation law, the thin skull doctrine and actuarial evidence.
FAQ
Is Chronic Pain After a Car Accident Compensable Under Canadian Law?
Yes. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal confirmed in Trainor v. DeArcos (2025) that chronic pain is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a motor vehicle accident. If the crash caused or contributed to it, it is compensable, even where it developed over months or years.
Can I Still Recover Damages If I Had Depression or Anxiety Before the Accident?
Yes. Under the thin skull doctrine, a stable and managed condition does not reduce the award. The at-fault driver takes you as you are.
How Much Is a Chronic Pain After Car Accident Claim Worth?
It depends on the severity of the pain and its effect on work, home and independence. Claims range from tens of thousands of dollars for moderate chronic pain to several million for disabling pain that ends earning capacity. In Trainor the award was about $2.3 million.
What If the Insurance Company Says My Chronic Pain Is Not Related to the Accident?
That challenge is routine, especially where the pain came on gradually. The answer is medical evidence. Trainor had ten medical and professional witnesses.
How Long Do I Have to File a Chronic Pain Claim After a Car Accident?
In New Brunswick the general limitation period is two years. The clock may run from when you discovered the link between the pain and the crash rather than from the crash itself. See a lawyer as soon as you suspect the symptoms are connected.