What is the range of reduction in the amount of medication awarded to a 65-year-old woman who suffers from menstrual migraines?

The trial judge imposed a 25% reduction to account for the fact that some of the medication would be attributable to the prevention and treatment of menstrual migraines. He does not consider his finding was that the respondent’s accident-related migraines would improve over time. Equally, he did not factor in a contingency to reflect the fact that the respondent’s menstrual migraines would likely diminish and cease over time in light of her age. These contingencies have opposing effects on the award; increasing the relative frequency of accident-related migraine with menopause, but with a diminishing frequency of accident-related migraines as the respondent’s health improved. Although the judge did not factor these contingencies into the award (see, Morlan v. Barrett, 2012 BCCA 66), I would not disturb it since it may be a reasonable assumption that the positive and negative contingencies would cancel each other out.