What is the impact of following a doctor’s advice to exercise and follow the recommended treatment?

As such, I find that the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages which compensate her for her pain and suffering have to be slightly reduced to reflect her failure to reasonably mitigate her injuries by diligently following the recommended treatments. I emphasize the word “slightly” because this is not a case where the plaintiff has not even tried to complete the recommended treatment or has not even started it. In Gibbs v. Skemp, [1998] B.C.J. No. 680 (B.C.S.C.), by contrast, the plaintiff did not follow her doctor’s advice to be active and exercise regularly and the trial judge accepted that “she basically remained inactive the year that she was off” (at para. 53). The trial judge reduced the non-pecuniary damage award by 10% as a result of her lack of mitigation.