When Ashley Anderson was rear-ended in 2014, she was in her mid-30s, healthy, and thriving in a banking career. A second accident just months later compounded her difficulties. By 2025, she found herself at the centre of a lengthy Supreme Court trial in Anderson v. Gagne, 2025 NSSC 131, seeking compensation for traumatic brain injury (TBI), chronic pain, and lost earning capacity.

Her case offers a roadmap for how the Nova Scotia courts weigh complex injury claims—particularly those grounded in post-concussion syndrome and chronic pain, where subjective symptoms often outweigh objective clinical findings, and credibility becomes central to the court’s task.

Let’s walk through the medical, legal, and evidentiary highlights of this case.

The Collisions

Ms. Anderson was rear-ended twice in 2014: first on March 29 in Halifax, and again on October 14 in Dartmouth. Both collisions were low-speed and caused no visible vehicle damage. Ms. Anderson did not seek emergency care at the scene, but gradually developed symptoms over the following days and weeks: nausea, dizziness, ringing in her ears, and headaches.

The defendant, Andrew Gagne, admitted liability for the first accident and accepted that soft-tissue injuries triggered the “Minor Injury Cap” under Nova Scotia’s Automobile Insurance Regulations. But he challenged the nature and extent of Ms. Anderson’s injuries—particularly her claim of a traumatic brain injury and lasting disability.

Neurological Expert Opinion

At the centre of the trial was a detailed neurological assessment by Dr. Manu Mehdiratta, who evaluated Ms. Anderson in July 2023. He concluded that she had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and ongoing post-concussion syndrome, both arising from the accidents.

Dr. Mehdiratta based his opinion on the internationally recognized Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation (ONF) Guideline for Concussion/Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Persistent Symptoms – Third Edition (2018). These guidelines are the standard of care in Canada and were explicitly cited in his report.

According to the ONF, a concussion—or mTBI—may be diagnosed when one or more of the following signs are present:

  1. Any loss or alteration of consciousness (less than 30 minutes); 
  2. Post-traumatic amnesia (memory gaps for events before or after the trauma, less than 24 hours); 
  3. Altered mental state at the time of injury (e.g., confusion, disorientation, slowed thinking); 
  4. Physical symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, balance disturbance, nausea, tinnitus, or sensitivity to light/sound; 
  5. Normal standard neuroimaging, meaning no visible brain injury on CT or MRI (the absence of imaging findings does not rule out concussion). 

Dr. Mehdiratta found that Ms. Anderson satisfied at least three of these indicators for both accidents:

  • She had no memory of the impacts, consistent with post-traumatic amnesia; 
  • She reported being confused and dazed, repeating herself and unsure of what to do; 
  • She experienced dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, and visual disturbances immediately after both collisions. 

Importantly, he emphasized that concussion symptoms can arise even without direct head impact. The acceleration-deceleration forces of rear-end collisions, he explained, are sufficient to cause axonal disruption—a stretching and shearing of nerve fibres in the brain—even if no trauma is visible on imaging.

This framing, grounded in medical literature and standard guidelines, gave significant weight to his diagnosis.

Objective vs. Subjective Evidence in TBI Claims

Traumatic brain injuries—particularly concussions and post-concussion syndrome—often involve symptoms that are subjective: pain, fatigue, memory issues, difficulty concentrating. These are symptoms that no MRI or CT scan can definitively measure. That makes credibility and contemporaneous documentation crucial in court.

Justice Gatchalian addressed this head-on. She noted that Ms. Anderson’s case relied heavily on her own reporting of symptoms, and thus required careful scrutiny. In her words, the court must determine “how Ms. Anderson’s account stands in harmony with the other evidence.”

Here, the court relied on a combination of:

  • Expert validation: Dr. Mehdiratta’s clinical reasoning and use of the ONF Guidelines made the subjective symptoms medically credible. 
  • Contemporaneous medical records: Physiotherapy, massage therapy, and primary care notes from 2014 confirmed the early onset of headaches, dizziness, and tinnitus. 
  • Lay witness testimony: Multiple friends and family members, including Ms. Anderson’s sons and former partner, described consistent behavioural changes after the accident, including memory lapses, mood fluctuations, and withdrawal from social and physical activities.

The synergy between subjective symptoms and documented observations created a convincing overall picture. Justice Gatchalian accepted that Ms. Anderson’s concussion diagnosis was medically and legally supported.

The Credibility Analysis

Ms. Anderson testified over the course of two and a half days. Justice Gatchalian acknowledged her as articulate and intelligent but ultimately found some inconsistencies between her evidence and the medical records. For example:

  • Ms. Anderson testified that she hit her forehead on the steering wheel and developed a bruise. But her earliest records—physiotherapy, family doctor, massage therapy—contained no mention of this. 
  • She stated that she recalled the moments before and during the second accident. However, multiple prior assessments noted no memory of those events. 

The court concluded that these discrepancies were not signs of dishonesty, but rather the result of memory degradation over time—a point that ironically underscores the nature of concussive injury itself.

Ultimately, the court decided to assign limited weight to Ms. Anderson’s testimony about the specifics of the accident, but substantial weight to her symptom reporting when corroborated by contemporaneous records and lay witness accounts.

This reinforces a key principle in injury law: credibility is not all-or-nothing. A plaintiff may still be found credible regarding the effects of an injury, even if their recollection of the mechanism or timeline is incomplete.

Assessing the Impact of a Brain INjury

One of the most compelling parts of the case related to Ms. Anderson’s career trajectory. She returned to work quickly after both accidents, driven by loyalty and financial necessity. But she struggled—taking more time to prepare for meetings, requiring breaks, and reducing her travel.

By 2017, she had to change roles to reduce her travel commitments by 15%. In 2022, she secured a senior management position that allowed her to work from home 90% of the time. Even with these accommodations, she reported fatigue, cognitive strain, and an inability to advance at the pace she had before.

Justice Gatchalian heard evidence that Ms. Anderson had work from home accommodations, ongoing fatigue, cognitive strain, and concern about her ability to advance her career at the same pace. Justice Gatchalian found that Ms. Anderson had not recovered full function in her occupation, even if she had technically returned to work. This distinction between working and working without disability was key.

The court found that her ability to function in her own occupation had been impaired by her post-concussion symptoms, and that her post-accident career required a restructuring of duties, expectations, and energy expenditure to remain sustainable.

Key Takeaways for Injury Claims Involving a Traumatic Brain Injury

1. Guideline-Based Diagnoses Strengthen Credibility

By anchoring his findings in the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation Guidelines, Dr. Mehdiratta provided an objective framework for what would otherwise be considered subjective symptoms. Courts respect standardized clinical tools, especially those widely adopted in Canada.

2. You Don’t Need a Loss of Consciousness or Imaging Abnormalities

This case affirms that a traumatic brain injury may be diagnosed without loss of consciousness, and without abnormalities on imaging. The court was clear that axonal disruption and the resulting symptoms may occur from internal forces alone.

3. Subjective Evidence Must Be Corroborated

A TBI claim can succeed when subjective reports are consistent over time and supported by objective evidence, including treatment records, functional assessments, and observations by others.

4. Credibility Is Contextual, Not Absolute

Even where a plaintiff has inconsistencies in memory or testimony, courts can still find them credible if their symptom reporting is otherwise consistent, well-documented, and corroborated by neutral parties.

5. Return to Work Does Not Mean Recovery

This decision reinforces that returning to work does not necessarily defeat a claim for disability. Courts will consider the quality of the return—including any accommodations, performance impacts, or career sacrifices.

Conclusion: Building the Legal and Medical Bridge in Brain Injury Claims

Ashley Anderson’s case illustrates how “invisible injuries” like concussions (and chronic pain) can be made visible—through detailed medical analysis, clear reference to clinical guidelines, and a well-rounded evidentiary record. For treatment providers and legal professionals, this case underscores the importance of structured documentation, early assessment, and supporting patient credibility through objective clinical practice.

Injury victims are often told their injuries are “minor” if they don’t show up on a scan. But as this case shows, minor impact does not mean minor consequence, and a well-prepared case grounded in both science and narrative can overcome the limitations of invisible injury.

Jeff Mitchell and Kallen Heenan successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial.

If you’re a healthcare provider or legal professional working with injury victims, connect with us to learn how collaborative documentation and clear functional assessments can strengthen your patients’ cases—and protect your clinical integrity.