In Reddy v. Staples, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, as well as other heads of damages. Liability was admitted by ICBC’S lawyer. The Plaintiff sustained a serious knee injury as a result of the collision, and although the Plaintiff had some form of pre-existing knee pain, he maintained that the accident caused pain to different areas of the knee, and to a much greater degree than he experienced prior to the accident. The Court was to determine the issues of the extent of the Plaintiff’s knee injury at the time of trial, the extent to which it was caused by the accident, and the extent to which the injuries caused by the motor vehicle collision will affect the Plaintiff in the future. By the time of trial, it was close to five years since the accident. The Court determined that 85% of the Plaintiff’s knee issues were due to the accident, with the remaining 15% attributable to pre-existing conditions, and awarded $80,000.00 for pain and suffering.
 It is difficult to assess the contribution of each condition to the plaintiff’s current knee symptoms because the experts addressed this issue only in general, sometimes vague, terms. It is reasonably clear that the meniscus damage that was already present at the time of the accident would have caused problems for the plaintiff, even absent the accident, until it was repaired in October 2009, and it might have continued to cause problems after that. As Dr. Calvert said, “the majority of patients with an isolated meniscal injury do recover a good portion of their function post surgery”, thus suggesting that some do not. Dr. Calvert said that even with just the meniscal damage and removal he would have counselled, post-surgery, against activities that involved repetitive impacts. It is also clear from the evidence, however, that the chondral injuries to his patella and medial femoral condyle are more significant than was the pre-existing meniscal damage. I also conclude that the risk of degenerative arthritis associated with just the meniscal injury was and is materially lower, and with a longer time frame, than it is with the chondral injuries, where osteoarthritis is already present.
 I am satisfied that Mr. Reddy, 31 years old at the time of the accident, suffered a significant injury to his knee (the chondral injuries) as a result of the accident. In addition, he had pain and stiffness in his back, neck and shoulder areas for a period of about four or five months. His knee condition generally (that is, involving both pre-accident and accident-related causes) is frequently painful, restricts his activities and enjoyment of life, and causes him stress and anxiety. On my assessment, 85% of those problems are attributable to the injuries he suffered in the accident. The accident-caused injuries are degenerative, as is his pre-existing knee condition, though the degeneration associated with the accident injuries has already manifested itself and the degeneration associated with his pre-accident condition is likely to occur later, perhaps much later.