The thing with compensation in civil claims like these is that it is evaluated based on the lost income or "damages" to the victim, not the seriousness/maliciousness of the hit (where the punishment is typically determined either by the NHL's self-regulation or a criminal court in Bertuzzi's case). For instance, if Moore suffered from latent epilepsy, and Bertuzzi's hit caused Moore to start suffering from seizures, Bertuzzi would be obligated to compensate for the seizures regardless of any prior knowledge of the epilepsy. In the case of Moore, they must evaluate the damages based on Moore's current condition, not necessarily the act that caused it (so long as Bertuzzi is at guilt for that particular act, that is).
So in this case, Moore's inability to play hockey during these years is absolutely critical for determining the compensation for this case; the compensation is directly correlated to lost income.
I wasn't suggesting it was based on the act itself...plus, epilepsy is something where the symptoms are easily recognizable...with concussions it's not as easy to determine how much damage has actually been caused, you pretty much have to take the victim at his word.