Developing chronic pain after a car accident is more common than most people realize — and claims involving chronic pain are often worth far more than the initial physical injuries alone. In a December 2025 decision, the Mike Murphy Law Group secured approximately $2.3 million for a young woman whose car accident injuries led to chronic pain, PTSD, a jaw disorder, and multiple surgeries. The trial court had originally awarded just $325,000. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal corrected multiple legal errors and ordered the full amount.
That decision — Trainor v. DeArcos, 2025 NBCA 131 — is one of the most important personal injury rulings in Canada for anyone living with chronic pain after a car accident. Here is what it means for your claim.
Table of Contents
How Chronic Pain After a Car Accident Develops
Not every injury from a car accident is immediately obvious. A fracture, a soft tissue injury, or even a seemingly minor impact can trigger a chain of physical and neurological responses that develop into chronic pain weeks, months, or even years later. Understanding how chronic pain after a car accident develops is the first step toward building a strong claim.
In the Trainor case, the plaintiff fractured her heel bone in the collision. That injury changed how she walked, which caused compensating stress on her other leg and hip. Over 18 months, she developed widespread pain throughout her body — back, neck, legs, arms, and jaw. Ten medical professionals testified that the accident triggered physical, emotional, and cognitive symptoms that compounded over time.
This pattern is well-documented in medical literature. A localized injury can change how the nervous system processes pain signals. When combined with the psychological trauma of an accident — anxiety, depression, PTSD, disrupted sleep — the result can be generalized chronic pain that affects every part of daily life. The pain is real, it is measurable by clinicians, and under Canadian law, it is compensable. Understanding how chronic pain after a car accident develops is essential to building a strong claim.
The Medical Evidence Behind Chronic Pain After a Car Accident
One of the strongest aspects of the Trainor decision was the depth of medical evidence supporting the chronic pain claim. The plaintiff’s case drew on testimony from ten medical and professional witnesses, each of whom contributed to establishing the causal chain between the accident and the chronic pain condition.
The family physician documented the progression from localized heel pain to widespread body pain over a period of 18 months. She explained that chronic pain is defined as pain experienced over several years, and noted that mental health conditions can make pain worse — a person with less developed coping skills would be impacted more significantly.
The orthopedic surgeon described an “amplified response” to the heel surgery that he would not have expected. Symptoms that emerged after the surgery — pain in the back, hips, thigh, head, neck, and jaw — were new and could not be explained by the surgical intervention alone. He noted that this response was strikingly different from the plaintiff’s excellent recovery after a major surgery in 2011, before the accident.
The psychologist and neuropsychologist provided critical evidence linking the plaintiff’s mental health conditions to her experience of pain. The neuropsychological assessment concluded that the accident “triggered the onset or exacerbation of physical, emotional, sleep and cognitive symptoms” and that the plaintiff had become “more vulnerable and less capable of coping with additional stressors” as a result of the collision.
This comprehensive medical evidence was essential to the outcome. The Court of Appeal emphasized that chronic pain after a car accident is a foreseeable consequence of motor vehicle collisions — it is not unusual or far-fetched. The depth of the medical record was what established, beyond dispute, that the accident caused the chronic pain condition.
Chronic Pain After a Car Accident Is Legally Compensable
One of the most significant findings in the Trainor decision is the Court of Appeal’s confirmation that chronic pain after a car accident is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the collision. The court’s ruling that chronic pain after a car accident is foreseeable has national significance. This matters because insurance companies and defence lawyers routinely argue that chronic pain is too remote — too disconnected from the original impact — to justify compensation.
Canadian negligence law does not require the at-fault driver to foresee the exact injury. The legal standard, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha v. Culligan, asks 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 flowing from a car accident fall squarely within the range of foreseeable outcomes. These are not unusual or far-fetched consequences of a motor vehicle collision.
The court was clear that the foreseeability analysis should have stopped once the trial judge acknowledged that localized pain was foreseeable. The trial judge’s error was in going further — examining how the plaintiff’s individual mental health history contributed to the development of chronic pain. That inquiry improperly applied a subjective standard instead of the objective test required by law.
Pre-Existing Conditions Do Not Disqualify a Chronic Pain Claim
A common defence strategy in chronic pain cases is to argue that the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions — depression, anxiety, prior injuries, learning disabilities — are the “real” cause of the pain, not the accident. Insurance adjusters use this argument to minimize or deny chronic pain after car accident claims entirely.
In Trainor, the defendant made exactly this argument. The plaintiff had pre-existing diagnoses including major depression in partial remission, borderline personality disorder, and a prior leg condition. The trial judge accepted this reasoning and reduced the award from $2.3 million to $325,000.
The Court of Appeal rejected this approach completely.
The Thin Skull Doctrine Protects Vulnerable Plaintiffs
Canadian law has long recognized the “thin skull” doctrine. If someone negligently injures you, they are liable for the full extent of your injuries — even if those injuries are more severe than what an average person would have experienced. The at-fault driver does not get a discount because you happened to be more vulnerable.
The critical distinction is between a “thin skull” and a “crumbling skull.” A thin skull plaintiff has a pre-existing condition that was latent and stable at the time of the accident. Under the thin skull rule, the defendant pays full damages. A crumbling skull plaintiff has a condition that was actively deteriorating regardless of the accident. In those cases, the court reduces the award to account for the pre-existing decline — but as the Supreme Court of Canada held in Athey v. Leonati, even a crumbling skull finding cannot bar recovery entirely.
In Trainor, Ms. Trainor’s mental health conditions were well-managed and in partial remission. Her psychiatrist described her as stable 13 days before the collision. She was working and functioning well. The Court of Appeal found she was a thin skull plaintiff entitled to full compensation — no discount, no reduction.
Why the Trial Judge’s Application of the Crumbling Skull Doctrine Was Wrong
The trial judge’s reasons contained an internal contradiction that the Court of Appeal identified. The judge concluded both that the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions were the “cause” of her chronic pain, and also that those conditions were “well managed” but placed her at greater risk of pain progressing to a chronic condition.
The Court of Appeal held that the second characterization — well-managed conditions placing the plaintiff at greater risk — described a thin skull plaintiff, not a crumbling skull. A crumbling skull requires evidence that the condition was actively deteriorating and would have caused harm regardless of the accident. Here, the plaintiff’s conditions were stable and in partial remission. The accident triggered the chronic pain; the pre-existing conditions did not.
Furthermore, even if the crumbling skull doctrine had applied, the trial judge erred by using it to bar recovery entirely. Under Athey v. Leonati, the crumbling skull doctrine can only reduce an award — it cannot eliminate it. The court must assess the measurable risk that the pre-existing condition would have caused harm anyway, and reduce the damages by that proportion. The trial judge’s complete denial of chronic pain damages was an incorrect statement of the law.
What a Chronic Pain Claim Can Be Worth
Chronic pain claims are often worth significantly more than people expect because the damages extend across multiple categories that accumulate over a lifetime. The value of a chronic pain after a car accident claim depends on the severity of symptoms and their impact on earning capacity.
In the Trainor case, the $2.3 million award included:
- General damages: $200,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life
- Past loss of earnings: $183,206 covering the period from the accident through trial
- Future loss of earnings: Approximately $1.29 million projected to retirement, including management fees
- Housekeeping capacity: Approximately $232,000 for past and future inability to perform household tasks
- Future care costs: Approximately $403,000 for ongoing medication, therapy, and supports
These figures reflect the full reality of living with chronic pain after a car accident. It encompasses the career you can no longer pursue, the household tasks you need help with, the medications and therapy you will need for decades, and the independence you have lost.
5 Steps to Protect Your Chronic Pain Claim
If you are experiencing persistent or worsening pain after a motor vehicle collision, there are steps you can take right now to protect your rights. These steps can protect your chronic pain after a car accident claim from being undervalued.
1. Report All Symptoms to Your Doctor
Document every symptom — headaches, jaw pain, sleep disruption, widespread body pain, anxiety, mood changes — even if they seem unrelated to the original injury. The medical record is the foundation of a chronic pain claim. In Trainor, consistent documentation from multiple medical professionals over several years was critical to establishing the causal connection.
2. Do Not Accept a Quick Settlement
Chronic pain often takes months or years to fully develop. Settling early — before the full scope of injuries is known — can mean accepting a fraction of what a claim is worth. The gap between $325,000 at trial and $2.3 million on appeal in Trainor illustrates how dramatically chronic pain claims can be undervalued.
3. Keep Records of How Pain Affects Daily Life
Beyond medical records, a personal log of how pain affects your ability to work, care for your home, and participate in activities supports claims for housekeeping capacity, future care, and general damages. Testimony from family members who observe daily limitations can also be powerful evidence.
4. Follow Your Treatment Plan
Courts consider whether a plaintiff took reasonable steps to manage their condition. Attending physiotherapy, taking prescribed medication, and following medical advice strengthens a claim. The expectation is reasonableness, not perfection — but gaps in treatment can be used against you by the defence.
5. Contact an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer
Chronic pain claims require specialized medical evidence, actuarial analysis, and a deep understanding of causation law. The legal principles — foreseeability, thin skull versus crumbling skull, future loss of earning capacity — are complex and frequently misapplied even by trial judges, as the Trainor case itself demonstrates. The right legal team is the difference between a fraction of what a claim is worth and full compensation.
How Long Does a Chronic Pain After Car Accident Claim Take?
Chronic pain claims take longer than typical injury claims because the full scope of injuries must be established over time. In the Trainor case, the accident occurred in March 2014 and the appeal decision came in December 2025 — more than eleven years later. While not every chronic pain after a car accident claim takes this long, the timeline reflects the reality that chronic pain develops gradually and its impact on earning capacity, daily life, and future care needs can only be fully understood after years of medical documentation.
The typical stages of a chronic pain after a car accident claim include an initial treatment and documentation phase lasting 12 to 24 months, during which the medical record is built. This is followed by independent assessments, actuarial analysis, and mediation or settlement discussions. If settlement cannot be reached, the case proceeds to trial. The Trainor case went through a full trial and then an appeal, which added several additional years. An experienced lawyer can help ensure your chronic pain after a car accident claim stays on track throughout the process.
Early legal representation is critical because the limitation period in most Atlantic Canadian provinces is two years from the date of injury — or from the date the connection between the accident and chronic pain was discovered. Missing this deadline can bar a claim entirely, regardless of its merits. An experienced personal injury lawyer will ensure all deadlines are met while the medical evidence continues to develop.
Why Insurance Companies Undervalue Chronic Pain After Car Accident Claims
Insurance adjusters are trained to minimize payouts on chronic pain claims. The most common tactics include arguing that the pain is subjective and cannot be objectively verified, pointing to gaps in treatment as evidence that the pain is not severe, claiming that pre-existing conditions are the real cause of ongoing symptoms, and offering early settlements before the full scope of injuries is known. If you are dealing with chronic pain after a car accident, the Mike Murphy Law Group can help.
The Trainor case is a striking example of how dramatically a chronic pain after a car accident claim can be undervalued. The trial court — applying incorrect legal principles — awarded $325,000. The Court of Appeal, applying the law correctly, ordered approximately $2.3 million. That seven-fold difference illustrates why chronic pain claims require legal representation with deep knowledge of causation law, the thin skull doctrine, and actuarial evidence.
Building a strong chronic pain after a car accident claim requires patience, thorough documentation, and a legal team that understands the medical and legal complexity of these cases. The Mike Murphy Law Group has the experience and track record to ensure that chronic pain victims receive the full compensation the law provides.
Frequently Asked Questions
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 accident caused or contributed to the chronic pain, it is compensable — even if the pain developed gradually over months or years. Anyone suffering from chronic pain after a car accident should seek legal advice to understand their rights under Canadian law.
Can I still recover damages if I had depression or anxiety before the accident?
Yes. Pre-existing mental health conditions do not disqualify a chronic pain claim. Under the thin skull doctrine, if your conditions were stable and well-managed before the accident, the at-fault driver must take you as you are and pay full damages for the harm the accident caused. A chronic pain after a car accident claim can still succeed even with a documented history of prior conditions.
How much is a chronic pain after car accident claim worth?
The value of a chronic pain after a car accident claim depends on the severity of the pain and its impact on your ability to work, maintain your home, and live independently. Claims range from tens of thousands of dollars for moderate chronic pain to several million dollars for severe, disabling chronic pain that eliminates earning capacity. In Trainor, the total award was approximately $2.3 million.
What if the insurance company says my chronic pain is not related to the accident?
Insurance companies routinely challenge the connection between chronic pain after a car accident and the collision itself, especially when the pain develops gradually. Overcoming this argument requires strong medical evidence. The Trainor case involved testimony from ten medical and professional witnesses. Building a thorough evidentiary foundation with your legal team is essential.
How long do I have to file a chronic pain claim after a car accident?
Limitation periods vary by province. In New Brunswick, the general limitation period for personal injury claims is two years. However, the clock may start from when you discovered the connection between chronic pain and the accident, not necessarily from the accident date. Consult a lawyer as soon as you suspect your ongoing symptoms are related to the collision. Filing a chronic pain after a car accident claim promptly is important to preserve your legal rights.
If you are living with chronic pain after a car accident, contact the Mike Murphy Law Group today at 506-854-5157 or through the secure online intake form. The team at Mike Murphy Law Group handles personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis — there are no fees unless your case is won.