Extension to Annular Tear Found to be Non-Threshold

In Brief

• A claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits and/or common law damages if their motor accident only causes them threshold injuries.
• Section 1.6(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) says that a threshold physical injury is a “soft tissue injury”.
• Section 1.6(2) of MAIA defines what is and what is not a “soft tissue injury” and says, inter alia, that a complete or partial rupture of cartilage is not a “soft tissue injury”.
• An accident-related extension to an annular tear constitutes a non-threshold injury because it involves a partial rupture of cartilage.

Facts

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Jung v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 128 on 6 March 2026.

On 10 December 2022, the Claimant was riding in the back seat of a vehicle which was stationary at traffic lights when the vehicle was rear-ended by the insured. The impact allegedly caused injuries to the length of the Claimant’s spine, chest and right shoulder.

The Insured denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits on the grounds that the only injuries sustained by the Claimant were threshold injuries. A primary PIC Assessor found that none of the injuries alleged by the Claimant were caused by the accident. The Claimant successfully sought referral to a Review Panel.

The Review Panel Decision

The Review Panel found a non-threshold injury to the Claimant’s cervical spine for the following reasons:

• An MRI scan in June 2019 – some 3.5 years prior to the MVA – revealed pre-existing annular tears at C4/5 and C6/7.
• The Claimant experienced neck pain on the night of the MVA.
• Hospital records prepared four days post-accident verify neck complaints.
• The rear-end collision was capable of causing the alleged injury to the Claimant’s cervical spine.
• An MRI scan in March 2023 showed marrow oedema and a punctate area of high signal at C6/7, which indicated an acute injury.
• The MVA made a more than negligible contribution to the extension of the Claimant’s pre-existing annual tears.
• The MVA, therefore, caused a partial rupture of cartilage which falls outside the definition of “soft tissue injury” in section 1.6(2) of MAIA.

Why This Case is Important

The decision in Jung confirms that a claimant can demonstrate a non-threshold injury if they can satisfy a Medical Assessor that an MVA caused an extension in their pre-existing annular tear.The extension represents an additional rupture to cartilage, caused by the accident, which falls within the list of exceptions in the definition of “soft tissue” injury in section 1.6(2) of MAIA.