MC PIC Decision of the Week
14 April 2025 – A Claimant disputes the Insurer’s finding of threshold psychiatric injury. She lodges a dispute in the PIC but only lists “psychological injury” and “psychiatric condition” in her application form. The PIC Medical Assessor proceeds to diagnose a non-threshold injury in the form of a Panic Disorder.
Is the Medical Review Panel empowered to choose their own psychiatric diagnosis?
In IAG v Kavakci, the Review Panel found that it was not bound by any psychiatric diagnoses listed by the parties and was empowered to formulate its own diagnosis based on the medical records and their psychiatric examination of the Claimant.
To see our full case note, click here.
7 April 2025 – A Claimant seeks funding for further surgery to his L5/S1 vertebrae. He had two prior surgeries to this area already.
Did the motor accident cause a further injury to his lumbar spine and did the need for surgery arise from the accident?
In Petrie v QBE, the Review Panel accepted the motor accident made a material contribution of the Claimant’s lumbar spine injury based on the mechanism of the accident, the initial contemporaneous evidence and imaging evidence of a further disc injury and the Claimant having fully recovered from his pre-existing injury at the time of the accident. The Panel also accepted the surgery is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, given that conservative treatment had not been successful.
To see our full case note, click here.
31 March 2025 – A Claimant suffers a number of musculo-skeletal injuries in a motor accident which warrant the use of pain relief medication. The Claimant subsequently suffers from tummy problems and reflux.
Were the Claimant’s stomach problems caused by the accident?
In GIO v Zjalic, the Medical Review Panel was not satisfied that the Claimant’s stomach problems were caused by the pain medication he took post-accident. The Review Panel noted that the tummy troubles would ordinarily arise within days or weeks of taking the medication, whereas this Claimant’s first symptoms arose two to three years post-accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
24 March 2025 – A Claimant claims reimbursement for childcare services. She claims that the services allow her to seek treatment for the injuries she sustained in the motor accident. The dispute childcare services, however, align with the school year and include literacy and numeracy programs to prepare the child for the school.
Can the Claimant recover the cost of the childcare services as a statutory benefit?
In Saedi v Allianz, the Member concluded the childcare services were neither “attendant care services” as defined by s 1.4 of the Act nor “domestic services” as covered by s 3.26 of the Act and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory benefits scheme.
To see our full case note, click here.
17 March 2024 – A Claimant claims the cost of various MRI scans to investigate the progression of injuries allegedly caused by a motor accident.
Are MRI scans reasonable and necessary in order to update the Claimant’s condition?
In AAMI v Shoyeb, the Medical Review Panel determined that the MRI scans were not reasonable and necessary. The Review Panel took into account a number of factors including whether the scans would influence the treatment of the Claimant’s axial pain (with no clear neurological signs) and whether the scans were required merely because time had passed since some prior scans. Ultimately, the Review Panel found that the scans were not a cost-effective response to the Claimant’s treatment needs.
To see our full case note, click here.
10 March 2025 – A Claimant requires surgery as a consequence of a motor accident. His treating practitioners recommend the use of nutritional supplements, such as Up & Go and Sustagen, immediately before and after the surgery because the Claimant is underweight.
Can the Claimant claim the cost of these nutritional supplements as a treatment and care expense in his statutory benefits claim?
In Ganeson v Allianz, the Member accepted the nutritional supplements fell within the definition of “medical treatment (including pharmaceuticals)” under section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 given the causal nexus between the accident and the need for surgery and between the surgery and the need to gain weight in advance of the procedure.
To read our full case note, click here.
5 March 2025 – A Claimant claims he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a minor motor vehicle accident, where he experienced no immediate pain and continued driving the car. No police or ambulance attended the scene.
Does the Claimant meet the criteria for PTSD and demonstrate a non-threshold injury?
In Ozucargil v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, the Review Panel determined that the Claimant did not meet the necessary criteria for PTSD, particularly in the absence of exposure to trauma threatening serious injury or death. Instead, the Panel found that the Claimant suffered an initial adjustment disorder, which is classified a threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
Read our full case note here.
3 March 2025 – A Claimant is driving in the kerbside lane and attempts to change lanes to their right. They fail to indicate their intention to do so. The front driver’s side of their vehicle collides with the rear passenger side quarter panel of a vehicle travelling in the lane to their right.
Is the Claimant entitled to damages under common law?
In Mahfoud v GIO, a PIC Member found that the Claimant was not entitled to damages because the accident was caused entirely by their own want of care.
To see our full case note, click here.
24 February 2024 – A Claimant suffers injuries to her cervical spine, right shoulder and lumbar spine in a workplace injury in 2020.
The Claimant is involved in a subsequent motor vehicle accident in 2021. She alleges an aggravation of her cervical spine and right shoulder injures together with new injuries to her lumbar spine, right foot and right hand.
How does the Medical Review panel deal with causation?
In Rim v NRMA, the Review Panel found that the documentary evidence demonstrated that the motor accident made a negligible contribution, at best, to the Claimant’s alleged injuries. In coming to this conclusion, the Review Panel placed significant weight upon the contemporaneous medical records and the Claimant’s worker’s compensation claim file.
To read our full case note, click here.
17 February 2024 – A Claimant is negotiating a roundabout when his motorbike gets hit from behind. He hits his head when he topples from his bike.
Does the Claimant’s head injury give rise to any permanent impairment?
In Antonio v IAG, the Review Panel found that the Claimant’s head injury to did not meet the requirements of the Motor Accident Guidelines and the AMA 4 Guides in the absence of any evidence of a”significant impact to the head” and in the absence of any medically verified abnormality such as abnormal GCS score, post-traumatic amnesia or brain imaging abnormality.
To see our full case note, click here.
13 February 2025 – A Claimant alleges he was an “earner” because he was employed for at least 13 weeks in the 12-month period before the accident. He provides payslips in support of his claim.
There are, however, discrepancies in the payslips. When the bank produced the Claimant’s bank records, they failed to align with the payslips the Claimant presented.
Were the payslips sufficient to prove that the Claimant was employed during the relevant period?
In Kozlov v IAG, a PIC Member found that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate that he was an earner given the inconsistencies in the documentary evidence he provided and the evidence produced by his bank.
To read our full case note, click here.
10 February 2025 – A Claimant injured his right hand before the accident which required insertion of a plate and screws.
The hardware in the Claimant’s right hand is damaged in a subsequent motor accident two years later.
Does the damage to the pre-existing hardware in the Claimant’s right hand constitute a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and common law damages?
In Tasseli v NRMA, the Review Panel determined the Claimant sustained a non-threshold injury for two reasons. Firstly, the damage to the hardware caused an injury to the Claimant’s bone, which is an injury to hard tissue, not soft tissue. Secondly, the damage to the hardware itself constituted damage to “an aid” and was, therefore, an “injury” in its own right pursuant to the definition of “injury” in s 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
To read our full case note, click here.
3 February 2025 – An injured Claimant seeks to recover the cost of interior house painting and the replacement of thirteen oyster lights, whilst preparing his house for sale. He argues we would have performed these tasks himself had he not been injured.
Can the Claimant claim these costs as a “treatment and care” expense?
In Lau v QBE, a PIC Member found that neither the painting nor the replacement of the lights were “everyday tasks”, as required by the definition of “attendant care services”. In addition, the PIC Member was concerned that the tasks were to prepare the house for sale rather than to provide the Claimant with any kind of treatment or care.
It followed that the costs could not be recovered as a treatment and care expense pursuant to Part 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
To see our full case note, click here.
28 January 2024 – A Claimant claims she sustained a traumatic brain injury, complaining of ongoing memory deficits, dizziness and limitations on her ability to perform household tasks. She, however, had pre-existing psychological problems.
Did the accident cause a traumatic brain injury?
In Hajipavlou v Allianz, the Review Panel determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the Claimant sustained a traumatic brain injury because there was no evidence of any significant impact to the head or cerebral insult and no significant abnormality. The Review Panel found the evidence demonstrated the complaints were related to her pre-existing psychological injury and therefore the accident did not cause any organic brain trauma.
To see our full case note, click here.
20 January 2025 – A Claimant sustains a superficial skin abrasion in a motor accident. The abrasion did not involve the nerves and resolved within two weeks. The only other injuries sustained in the accident are soft tissue injuries.
Does the superficial abrasion qualify as a non-threshold injury which opens the door to ongoing statutory benefits and common law damages?
In Sam v QBE, the Review Panel applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Abawi and certified that the superficial skin abrasion was a non-threshold injury.
But the Review Panel appeared to do so reluctantly.
Our full case note explains why. So, click the link.
9 December 2024 – A Claimant disputes the insurer’s calculation of his pre-accident weekly earnings. He quit a permanent job three months before his motor accident and began working full-time for Uber. He, therefore, argues that the “significant change” provisions in clause 4(3) of Schedule 1 to the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 comes to his aid.
In Kumar v Allianz, a PIC Merit Reviewer found that clause 4(3) of Schedule 1 did not apply because the change in the Claimant’s circumstances did not result in significantly higher earnings on a regular basis. As such, the calculation method in clause 4(2)(b) was not triggered.
To see our full case note, click here.
2 December 2024 – A finding is made that the Claimant sustained a non-threshold injury.
The Insurer issues a further liability notice accepting the Medical Assessor’s finding to reinstate statutory benefits to the Claimant.
The Insurer subsequently lodges an application to review the threshold injury determination.
Is there still a medical dispute given the insurer’s further liability notice?
In QBE v Gilbey, the PIC Member determined that the threshold injury admission in the insurer’s further liability notice did not prevent it from exercising its statutory right to seek a review of the threshold injury determination.
To see our full case note, click here.
25 November 2024 – A driver loses control of his vehicle and collides with a tree. He has no memory of the accident. There are no witnesses.
Was the driver wholly or mostly at fault for his accident.?
In Earle-Joyce v AAI, a PIC Member inferred that the accident was caused by the Claimant’s fault because, in the absence of explanation, vehicles do not generally drive off the road without some want of care by their driver. In other words the PIC Member accepted a res ipsa loquitor argument.
The PIC Member assessed contributory negligence at 60%, however, because there was no evidence to establish where the driver’s want of care sat on the spectrum between gross negligence and a momentary lapse of attention.
To see our full case note, click here.
18 November 2024 – A Claimant is involved in a low speed rear-end collision in a car park. The Claimant exits his vehicle in an attempt to exchange details with the other driver. The Claimant is then confronted by angry motorists who are attempting to exit the car park.
What caused the Claimant’s psychiatric injury? The initial motor accident? Or the subsequent events?
In Portillo-Vera v IAG, the Review Panel found the events after the collision did not form part of the “motor accident” and the motor accident itself made no more than a negligible contribution to the Claimant’s physical presentation after the accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
11 November 2024 – A Claimant is riding his motorbike, at between 20 to 40 kph, along an unfamiliar fire trail. There’s a fallen tree in his path which is obscured by a bump in the road. His friend sees the fallen tree and stops just in time. The Claimant, however, fails to stop in time and hits the fallen tree. He sustains serious injuries.
Is the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault for his accident?
In Custovic v Allianz, a PIC Member found that the Claimant was partially responsible for the accident because he was riding too fast for the unfamiliar fire trail. In assessing the percentage contributory negligence, the PIC Member looked at the extent the Claimant departed from the standard of care required of him and found 75% contributory negligence.
On this basis, the Claimant was held to be mostly at fault.
To see our full case note, click here.
4 November 2024 – A Claimant is rear-ended in a motor accident. He makes no immediate complaints of shoulder pain. A subsequent MRI scan, however, discloses a labral tear.
Was the labral tear caused by the motor accident?
In Mourtada v Allianz, the Review Panel found the labral tear was an incidental finding on the MRI and not caused by the accident. In addition to the delayed complaint, the Review Panel noted that the Claimant’s complaints related to the AC joint and not the labrum.
To see our full case note, click here.
28 October 2024 – A motor accident causes two herniated discs in a Claimant’s cervical spine. Does the Claimant have to demonstrate radiculopathy in order to demonstrate a non-threshold injury?
In QBE v Azar, the Review Panel applied the Supreme Court decision in Momand v Allianz and concluded that where a herniated disc causes a complete or partial rupture of the cartilage around the disc, then the injury is a non-threshold injury. In those circumstances, the presence of radiculopathy is not necessary. The ruptured cartilage, alone, is sufficient to qualify as a non-threshold injury.
To see our full case note, click here.
21 October 2024 – A Claimant alleges injury to her cervical spine, including a disc injury and an aggravation of pre-existing degenerative changes. She also alleges a tear to her right shoulder.
Are the Claimant’s injuries non-threshold injuries?
In NRMA v Maraseh, the Review Panel applied the prior decision of David v Allianz by searching the Claimant’s treating records for signs of radiculopathy. It didn’t find any such evidence. The Review Panel also found that the tear in the Claimant’s right shoulder was pre-existing and did not increase in size.
The Review Panel, therefore, concluded that the Claimant only sustained threshold injuries.
To see our full case note, click here.
14 October 2024 – An Insurer concedes, following an Internal Review, that a Claimant’s permanent impairment exceeds 10%. The Insurer subsequently receives information which places causation of one of the alleged injuries in doubt.
Can the Insurer withdraw its concession and proceed to a WPI dispute in the Commission?
In GIO v Leverrier, a PIC Member held that the Insurer could reverse its WPI concession, the Internal Review determination notwithstanding. The Member reasoned that a WPI concession is not akin to a partial admission of liability. The Member also reasoned that the MAIA scheme specifically recognises that medical disputes may be re-opened when new information comes to hand, which supports the view that an Insurer is not bound by any earlier concession it may have made in the claims process.
To see our full case note, click here.
8 October 2024 – The Insurer obtains an expert psychiatrist report who recommends for the Claimant to undergo psychometric testing.
The Claimant objects on multiple occasions to attending the appointment.
The Insurer suspended the Claimant’s payment of weekly benefits under section 6.27 of the Act.
Did the Member accept the Claimant failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the Insurer’s request?
In Kammoun v NRMA, the Member determined the Claimant is not required to undergo psychometric testing because the Insurer’s request is unreasonable under section 6.27 of the Act.
To see our full case note, click here.
30 September 2024 – A Claimant suffers from a pre-existing Generalised Anxiety Disorder. A motor accident causes a temporary aggravation of that Disorder. The Claimant has recovered by the time of his medical assessment.
Has the accident caused a non-threshold psychiatric injury?
In Sims v IAG, the Medical Review Panel confirmed that a Claimant suffers from a non-threshold injury even if the accident only caused a temporary aggravation of a pre-existing non-threshold injury and even if the aggravation has ceased by the time of the PIC Medical Assessment.
To see our full case note, click here.
23 September 2024 – The Claimant states his brakes failed which caused a rear end motor vehicle collision.
The Claimant seeks ongoing statutory benefits but the Insurer says he was mostly at fault for the accident, so his claim was denied.
Which party bears the onus in a most at fault dispute?
In Stern v AAMI, the Member confirmed that the onus is on the insurer to establish how the accident occurred and that the Claimant was wholly or most at fault. In this instance, the Member accepted that the Claimant’s conduct was the only cause of the accident and therefore, the Claimant was wholly at fault.
To see our full case note, click here.
18 September 2024 – A Claimant suffers from a pre-existing Generalised Anxiety Disorder. That Disorder is aggravated by a motor accident. The Disorder is, however, in remission by the time the Claimant is assessed by a PIC Medical Assessor.
Does the Claimant have a non-threshold injury?
In QBE v Chebat, the Medical Review Panel found that the Claimant demonstrated a non-threshold injury because there was evidence of an aggravation to her Generalised Anxiety Disorder post-accident. It did not matter that the aggravation had resolved by the time of the PIC Medical Assessment.
In doing so, the Review Panel affirmed the prior decisions in David and Lynch and rejected the reasoning in Merhi.
To see our full case note, click here.
16 September 2024 – A motorcyclist is tragically killed in a motor accident. His loss of control, on a tight bend, was either caused by his own want of care or by the road surface. No other driver was at fault.
Can the deceased’s wife recover statutory benefits for her mental harm?
A PIC Member observed that s 3.39 of MAIA says that the Mental Harm provisions in Part 3 of the Civil Liability Act apply to statutory benefit claims with “necessary modifications”. In broad terms, the Member concluded that the modifications which were necessary would give the Claimant the same right to statutory benefits which her husband would have enjoyed, had he survived the motor accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
9 September 2024 – The Claimant requests the Insurer to pay for his surgery and nerve blocks.
The evidence establishes the injury was caused by the motor accident. But did the Claimant establish the proposed treatment is both “reasonable and necessary in the circumstances”?
In El-Kazzi v NRMA, the Panel did not accept the surgery and nerve blocks was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, particularly in circumstances where non-invasive options were available to the Claimant.
To see our full case note, click here.
3 September 2024 – A Claimant seeks to have a damages dispute set down for assessment. The Claimant’s WPI is not yet agreed or assessed. The Claimant argues, however, that there is no requirement to proceed to a WPI assessment in the absence of a dispute.
Does a PIC Member have the power to assess non-economic loss when WPI is not yet agreed or assessed?
In Atwal v NRMA, a PIC Member determined that a WPI dispute exists if there is a dispute between the parties, as distinct from a dispute between the doctors. An insurer is not bound by its expert opinion if the opinion is flawed in some identified way. Where a dispute exists, a PIC Member can not assess NEL until WPI is assessed by a Medical Assessor.
To see our full case note, click here.
2 September 2024 – A Claimant loses control of his motorcycle in damp and foggy conditions. A PIC Member accepts that the road surface was affected by some kind of slippery substance. There is expert evidence, however, that the Claimant was travelling at 120 kph before he braked.
Is the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault for their accident?
In McDonough v Youi, a PIC Member found the Claimant 80% responsible for his accident and, therefore, mostly at fault.
To see our full case note, click here.
26 August 2024 – A Claimant plans to paint the exterior of his house. He needs three weeks off work to complete the task. But a motor accident intervenes and he’s no longer able to perform the painting.
Can the Claimant claim the cost of painting his house as a treatment and care expense in his statutory benefits claim?
In BLI v Allianz, the Member did not accept that house painting fell within the definition of “attendant care services” in s 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, because it was not an “everyday task”.
To see our full case note, click here.
19 August 2024 – A claimant is parked in a school pickup zone. After placing schoolbags in the boot of her car, she steps onto the roadway in order to walk towards the driver’s door.
She does not look over her right shoulder before stepping onto the road. The Claimant is struck by the side mirror of the Insured vehicle as it passed her vehicle. The Insured vehicle was travelling at 30 kph in the 40 zone.
Is the Claimant partially responsible for her injuries?
In Ford-Gunatilake v IAG, a PIC Member found the Claimant and the Insured driver equally responsible for the accident and, therefore, assessed contributory negligence at 50%.
To see our full case note, click here.
12 August 2024 – A Claimant says he injured his neck and back in a motor vehicle accident and required surgery to his back.
The Claimant says the effect of having surgery means he sustained an above-threshold injury.
In Kennedy v Allianz, the Review Panel found the back injury was not caused by the accident and therefore did not comment on the surgery.
To see our full case note, click here.
5 August 2024 – An Insurer determines that a Claimant only sustained threshold injuries in a motor accident.
The Claimant alleges that the accident caused injuries to her spine which resulted in radiculopathy.
Does the Claimant have to demonstrate radiculopathy on the day of her PIC medical assessment?
In Merhi v IAG, the Medical Review Panel concluded that on a PIC Medical Assessor can conduct a threshold injury assessment, with the implication that the injury is only an above-threshold injury if radiculopathy is present on the day of the assessment.
To see our full case note, click here.
.
5 August 2024 – A claimant is injured in two bus accidents, approximately twelve months apart. In each accident she injuries her right knee and ultimately progresses to a total knee replacement.
Does the surgery transform a below-threshold injury to the right knee into an above-threshold injury?
In Bridgefoot v Allianz, the Medical Review Panel found that the right knee surgery was part of the injury continuum caused by the motor accident and was not a threshold injury.
The decision was delivered to the parties, however, before the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mandoukos v Allianz.
To see our full case note, click here.
29 July 2024 – A Claimant is involved in two motor vehicle accidents, nine days apart. The Claimant has a long-standing history of psychological and physical symptoms. He denied any ongoing psychological symptoms after either accident.
Did either accident cause any psychiatric impairment?
In GIO v Zalghout, the Medical Review Panel determined that neither of the two motor vehicle accidents caused, contributed to or exacerbated any psychological injury or impairment to the Claimant.
To see our full case note, click here.
22 July 2024 – An elderly lady boards a bus with a trolley bag. She places the bag in the luggage rack but has difficulty retracting the handle. The doors of the bus close and the bus starts to move away whilst the lady is still using both hands to try to force the handle to retract. The driver brakes suddenly to stop the bus at a red light and the lady is thrown to the ground, suffering injury.
Is the Claimant partially responsible for her injuries?
In Hidalgo v Allianz, a PIC Member held that the Claimant should have foreseen that the bus would pull away as soon as the doors closed and that she failed to exercise reasonable care by not holding onto a handrail. The Member assessed her contributory negligence at 10%.
To see our full case note, click here.
15 July 2024 – The Claimant is injured in an accident involving an unidentified vehicle on 7 October 2023. He makes a claim for statutory benefits on 24 November 2023. He does not provide details of the due inquiry and search he conducted into the identity of the at-fault vehicle until 1 March 2024.
On what date was the claim against the Nominal Defendant properly made? And when does the Claimant’s entitlement to statutory benefits begin?
In Najjar v NRMA, the Member determined that a claim against the Nominal Defendant is only compliant when details of due inquiry and search are provided. The Member further determined that the entitlement to statutory benefits only begins on that date.
To see our full case note, click here.
8 July 2024 – A Claimant is knocked down as a pedestrian. She makes a claim for statutory benefits under Part 3 of MAIA. Given that she is a retiree, however, her claim is limited to treatment and care. She has not yet made a claim for common law damages, but intends to do so.
The Insurer alleges that the Claimant is 30% responsible for her accident.
Should the contributory negligence dispute proceed to the Personal Injury Commission for resolution.
In Drane v IAG, a PIC member found that resolving the contributory negligence dispute would not represent a cost-effective use of the Commission’s resources. The decision would have no impact on the Claimant’s statutory benefits given that she only claimed treatment and care. Furthermore, any decision made by the Member would not be binding in any subsequent claim for common law damages.
To see our full case note, click here.
1 July 2024 – A Claimant says she developed an immediate onset of urinary incontinence after a motor vehicle accident.
Do the contemporaneous clinical records support her claims the onset was immediate?
In QBE v McKenzie, the Review Panel reviewed the treating and expert medical evidence and determined there was no objective evidence of an injury to the bladder.
To see our full case note, click here.
24 June 2024 – A 79-year-old claimant alleges a supraspinatus tear was caused by a motor accident. The impact was from her left. She was restrained by a seatbelt. She did not remember hitting anything within the vehicle. She made no immediate complaints of shoulder pain. The tear was only discovered some 18 months post-accident.
In Issac and AAMI, the Medical Review Panel found that a supraspinatus tear is unlikely unless (a) the muscle tendon complex was passively stretched or contracted forcibly against resistance, or (b) there was direct force to the lateral aspect of the shoulder. As neither was present in this case, the Review Panel concluded that the supraspinatus tear was not caused by the motor accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
17 June 2024 – A Claimant says his pre-existing psychological injury resolved before the accident. But the pre-accident clinical records tell a different story.
When considering causation, how much weight should the Commission give the Claimant’s account when it is inconsistent with the contemporaneous records?
In Mahroei v QBE, the Medical Review Panel concluded that the Claimant’s pre-accident records demonstrated that his pre-existing psychiatric injury was symptomatic prior to the accident. As such, the Panel determined that the motor accident did not cause the Claimant any recognised psychiatric injury.
To see our full case note, click here.
11 June 2024 – A claimant is injured at work whilst driving an unregistered forklift. The accident occurs in a private factory.
Is the Nominal Defendant liable for the claimant’s statutory benefits.
In Wright v IAG, a PIC Member found that s.1.10A of the Motor Accident Injuries Act applies to all open claims for statutory benefits under the Act. As such, all the Nominal Defendant provisions in Division 2.4 came into play even though the accident occurred before the amendment was introduced.
The Member therefore found that the Nominal Defendant was not liable for the claimant’s stat benefits because the accident did not occur on a road as required by s 2.29.
To see our full case note, click here.
4 June 2024 – A Claimant complains of cervical spine pain arising from the accident but developed very sharp pain, with numbness and pins and needles after being tackled by his grandchild, some months later requiring surgery.
What caused the disc prolapse and the need for surgery? The motor accident? Or the subsequent incident where the Claimant was tackled by a grandchild?
In NRMA v Delaney, the Review Panel found accident was unlikely to have caused the Claimant’s C6 nerve compromise because an MRI scan conducted after the accident, but before the tackling incident, showed no evidence of oedema.
To see our full case note, click here.
27 May 2024 -A claimant alleges an accident caused him PTSD and other above-threshold psychiatric injuries.
A PIC Medical Assessor certifies a below-threshold injury, namely an adjustment disorder.
The Review Panel, however, finds an opioid use disorder, which is an above-threshold psychiatric injury, in addition to the adjustment disorder.
Should the Review Panel overturn the Medical Assessor’s Certificate?
In Elammar and AAMI, the Review Panel declined to overturn the original Certificate because the Claimant did not list an opioid use disorder in his dispute application. The Review Panel applied the Court of Appeal decision in Manoukos and found that the opioid use disorder was outside the medical dispute referred to them for assessment.
To see our full case note, click here.
20 May 2024 – A Claimant relies on her expert psychiatrist’s report and asserts it is reliable evidence in respect to a whole person impairment dispute regarding her psychological injury.
Are the expert’s opinions reliable?
In Kemp v IAG Limited, the Review Panel gave little weight to the Claimant’s expert report because the Claimant provided an incorrect history to the expert regarding her school grades and the expert was not briefed with all the relevant evidence, causing the expert to make findings which were inconsistent to the contemporaneous evidence.
To see our full case note, click here.
13 May 2024 – A 74-year-old Claimant is injured in a motor accident. He is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss. He makes a belated claim, however, for economic loss based on a claim that he continued to work, post-retirement, for cash.
The Claimant, however, said he was not working in his claim form and said that he had retired in his primary statement. He did not disclose his employment to the medical experts who examined him. He did not inform Centrelink that he was receiving income whilst also receiving the aged pension.
In Park and IAG, a PIC Member decided that the belated claim for economic loss lacked substance and decided to dismiss the damages dispute pursuant to s 54(b) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.
To see our full case note, click here.
6 May 2024 – A Claimant alleges that the costal cartilage in his chest is mobile and highly likely to be ruptured because of a motor accident.
Did the accident cause an above threshold injury to the Claimant’s chest / rib?
In Maybury v CIC Allianz, the Review Panel found an above-threshold costal cartilage rupture even though the injury was not visible on any x-ray, ultrasound or CT scan. The Review Panel reasoned there was visual evidence, at surgery, of a vertical fracture of the costal cartilage caused by the pressure directly applied from the overlying seatbelt.
To see our full case note, click here.
30 April 2024 – A Claimant has a history of right shoulder problems including a partial thickness tear. She has a motor accident just eight days after complaining to her GP of right shoulder pain. Post-accident imaging demonstrates that the tear has progressed from a partial tear to a full thickness tear. The Claimant was 68 years old on the day of her accident.
Who has the onus of proving that the progression of the shoulder tear was caused by the motor accident.
In Toomey and IAG, the Medical Review Panel confirmed that the Claimant shoulders the onus of proof in threshold injury disputes. In this claim, the Review Panel was not satisfied that the Claimant discharged her onus given her pre-accident complaints, the low-speed nature of the impact and the Claimant’s age.
To see our full case note, click here.
22 April 2024 – A claimant is injured in a motor accident. After a prolonged delay, she lodges an application for damages under common law with the relevant insurer. She lodges a damages dispute in the PIC a mere two weeks later.
Has the Claimant used her best endeavours to resolve the claim before proceeding to the PIC for assessment?
In Kaur v TAC, a PIC Member dismissed the damages dispute because the Claimant made no attempt to resolve her damages claim before proceeding to the PIC. In particular, she neither extended an invitation to negotiate nor made an offer of settlement.
To see our full case note, click here.
15 April 2024 – An infant Claimant develops anxiety post-accident which leads to urinary urgency and frequency.
Does this behavioural outcome constitute an above-threshold injury?
In Khoder v GIO, the Review Panel determined that urinary urgency and frequency is a behavioural outcome, which is not a recognised psychological injury, and is therefore a threshold injury for the purposes of the Act.
To see our full case note, click here.
8 April 2024 – A claimant suffers a laceration to her wrist in a motor accident. Has she sustained an above-threshold injury?
In Abawi v Allianz, the Review Panel determined that only injuries to the connective tissue of the body fall within the definition of a “soft tissue injury” in s 1.6 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act. Given that the skin performs functions above and beyond that of connective tissue – including regulating temperature, protecting from ultraviolet radiation and retaining water – an injury to the skin is not a soft tissue injury and is, therefore, an above threshold injury.
To see our full case note, click here.
2 April 2024 – A claimant is driving a bus when the insured driver sideswipes the rear of the bus. The experts agree that the low speed impact is below the usual injury threshold.
Did the accident cause the claimant any permanent impairment?
In TAC v Kelyana, the Medical Review Panel determined that the forces involved in the accident were insufficient to cause the claimant any injury. In coming to its conclusion, the Review Panel had regard to expert biomechanical reports together with CCTV which demonstrated 80 incidents, prior to the accident, where the bus went over expansion plates and speed humps, which involved great impact pulse than the motor accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
25 March 2024 – A Claimant departs from a boat cruise on St Patrick’s Day and walks along the roadway. She is struck by a boat trailer being towed by a vehicle. Despite her denials, her blood alcohol content was measured at 0.14.
Was the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault?
In Kelly v Allianz, the Member found that the Claimant was mostly at fault because, on the balance of probabilities, she stepped into the path of the moving boat trailer.
To see our full case note, click here
.
18 March 2024 – A Claimant is running her own business when she is injured in a motor accident. The business is running at a loss. How are the Claimant’s pre-accident weekly earnings calculated?
In Zou v QBE a Personal Injury Commission Merit Reviewer agreed that the Claimant was “an earner” because she was self-employed. The Merit Reviewer confirmed, however, that the net proceeds of a business are the business income less all business expenses. Where the business is running at a loss, it follows that the Claimant’s PAWE is $Nil.
To see our full case note, click here.
11 March 2023 – A Claimant’s brother is killed in a tragic motor accident. A Medical Assessor finds she suffers a recognised psychiatric illness giving rise to 13% WPI.
In GIO and Adnan, however, the Medical Review Panel found that the Claimant’s level of functioning was inconsistent with a psychiatric diagnosis, the tragic circumstances notwithstanding. In assessing the Claimant’s functioning the Review Panel looked at her work history, her academic performance and her level of day-to-day independence.
To see our full case note, click here.
4 March 2024 – A Claimant is injured in a motor accident. Her clothes are destroyed during her post-accident treatment at a hospital. She seeks to recover of the cost from the Insurer.
Is this expense claimable under the Motor Accident Injuries Act?
In Edwards v Allianz, the Member determined the reimbursement of clothing does not fall within the definition of treatment and care.
To see our full case, click here.
26 February 2024 – A claimant is injured in a motor accident. Post-accident radiology reveals a fracture at T11. Pre-accident imaging reports suggest fractures at T10.
Did the accident cause above-threshold injuries at T11.
Surprisingly, it did not.
In Verscio v IAG, the Medical Review Panel concluded that the Claimant was a member of a rare club with an L6 vertebra. Given this extra lumbar vertebra, the pre-accident reports had incorrectly labelled the thoracic vertebra which had been fractured. As such, the T11 fractures revealed by post-accident imaging were pre-existing and the accident only caused soft tissue injuries to the thoracic spine.
To see our full case note, click here.
A claimant is injured when the all-terrain vehicle he is riding on private property flips over and lands on him, breaking his leg. The claimant opts to pursue a claim against the land-owner’s public liability insurer rather than a CTP claim against the Nominal Defendant.
Is the claim suitable for assessment by the Commission?
No, it is not.
In Pout v Shipway, a PIC Member decided that the claim was not suitable for assessment by the PIC given the complex issues involved and the fact that the claimant was proceeding against non-CTP parties.
To see our full case note, click here.
12 February 2024 – A Claimant works as a labourer, pre-accident, and receives cash-in-hand. Can he rely on that income when calculating PAWE? And what about income received post-accident for work done pre-accident?
In, Kipkorir v NRMA, the Merit Reviewer included undocumented income in the calculation of PAWE because she was satisfied that the income related to personal exertion labour. The Merit Reviewer, however, excluded income received post-accident on the grounds that only income actually received pre-accident was relevant to the calculation of PAWE.
To see our full case note, click here.
5 February 2024 – The Claimant undergoes lumbar spine surgery for his discogenic injuries. Unfortunately, the surgery does not result in a good outcome.
The Claimant claims that his injuries warrant an award of $70,000 for future travel because he will require upgrades from economy class to business class.
Is an award for future increased travel costs warranted under s 4.5(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act?
Yes, in Noor v Transport Accident Commission, the Member took `judicial notice’ of the challenges a person with spinal injuries might encounter whilst travelling in economy class and awarded $27,000.
To see our full case note, click here.
29 January 2024 – A claimant suffers a soft tissue injury to his cervical spine in a motor accident. The injury, however, aggravates his pre-existing asymptomatic cervical spondylosis and leads to cervical fusion surgery after conservative treatment fails.
Did the accident cause an above-threshold injury?
Yes it did.
In Saleh and NRMA, the Medical Review Panel found that the surgery involved cutting of the skin and tearing of the Claimant’s nerves, ligaments, muscle and bone. As such, the surgery rendered the injury to the cervical spine an above-threshold injury.
To see our full case note, click here.
22 January 2024 – The Claimant is injured in the subject accident and then has two subsequent accidents.
She has surgery to both her cervical spine and her lumbar spine following each of those subsequent accidents.
The Insurer submits the claim is not suitable for assessment due to the complex causation issues surrounding the Claimant’s injuries and seeks a discretionary exemption.
In RACQ Insurance v BRT, the Member agreed the claim was not suitable for assessment under Division 7.6 of MAIA.
To see our full case, click here.
15 January 2024 – A Claimant’s husband is injured in a minor motor accident. She alleges suffering PTSD as a consequence. Does the Claimant have to show that a person of normal fortitude would have suffered a psychiatric illness in the same circumstances?
Yes, she does.
In Zhao v GIO, the Personal Injury Commission noted that s 3.39 of MAIA provided that the Mental Harm provisions in Part 3 the Civil Liability Act apply to stat benefit claims. Section 32 of the CLA provides that there is no duty of care to avoid mental harm unless it is reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude would suffer mental harm in the circumstances. The Merit Reviewer found that a personal of normal fortitude would not have suffered a psych illness given the minor nature of the accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
18 December 2023 – A Medical Assessor found the Claimant developed an adjustment disorder which is a threshold injury.
The Claimant argued she developed depression and potential post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident.
Did the Claimant develop a non-threshold psychological injury?
In Dokoza v GIO, the Review Panel accepted the Claimant developed Persistent Depressive Disorder, which is a non-threshold injury.
To see our full case note, click here.
11 December 2023 – A Claimant is thrown to the ground when the rear doors of a bus close on her. She alleges that the accident caused her above-threshold injuries in the form of fractured right ribs. A contemporaneous x-ray did not confirm the Claimant’s rib fractures. A CT scan may have been more determinative, but the Claimant could not undergo such a scan because she was pregnant.
Is the PIC still able to find above-threshold injuries.
Yes, they are.
In Ghaznawi and Allianz, the Medical Review Panel gave weight to the clinical opinion of hospital staff specialists who diagnosed rib fractures based on the Claimant’s clinical presentation.
To see our full case note, click here.
4 December 2023 – The Insured vehicle slows down, significantly below the speed limit and the Insured driver says he activated his right-hand indicator to turn right, other motorists coming out of the bend, particularly, the Claimant states the Insured driver had not activated the right hand indicator prior to commencing his turn. The Claimant attempts to overtake the Insured vehicle and a collision occurs.
Is the Claimant wholly or mostly at fault?
In Hall v NRMA, the Member found the Claimant was not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident.
To see our full case note, click here.
27 November 2023 – The Claimant alleges he was standing behind a parked car and he alleges the Insured vehicle ran over his foot.
The Insurer alleges the Claimant walked into the path of the Insured vehicle.
Did the Claimant contribute to his injuries?
In Kouchekisheikhani v Allianz, a PIC Member found the Claimant contributed to his injuries by being distracted, talking on his mobile phone, not keeping a proper look and walking into the line of traffic. The Claimant’s contributory negligence was assessed at 40%.
To see our full case note, click here.
21 November 2023 – The Claimant is riding an e-bike when she is pushed over by an assailant. The e-bike has a motor attached to the rear wheel and a throttle. Its predominate source of power, however, remains human pedal power.
Was the Claimant injured in a motor accident?
In CFD v AAMI, a PIC Member found that the e-bike was not a motor vehicle because the evidence did not establish that the motor was attached at the time the bike was built. Furthermore, the predominate cause of the injury was the assailant pushing the claimant over rather than any relevant use or operation of the bike.
To see our full case note, click here.
13 November 2023 – A Medical Assessor found the Claimant sustained threshold injuries. The Claimant argued before the Medical Review Panel that the Medical Assessor had not explained why the SLAP tear in the right shoulder was not caused by the accident.
Did the accident caused the SLAP tear?
In Fajloun v Allianz, the Review Panel accepted there was no pre-existing history of right shoulder complaints leading up to the accident and determined the Claimant either partially tore his labrum or further tore an already partially torn labrum, which is a non-threshold injury.
The Review Panel also accepted a MRI is a more accurate diagnostic tool for labral tears than an ultrasound.
To see our full case note, click here.
7 November 2023 – A Claimant performs a U-turn without first checking their rear-view mirrors. A vehicle travelling behind the Claimant T-bones the Claimant’s vehicle whilst executing the manoeuvre. The collision may have been avoided if that vehicle was not speeding.
Is the Claimant wholly or mostly-at-fault for the accident?
In Hamid v NRMA Insurance, a PIC Member found that the Claimant, whilst not wholly at fault, was mostly-at-fault for the accident because he failed to keep a proper lookout and because he did not wait until the Insured vehicle had passed before commencing his U-turn.
To see our full case note, click here.
30 October 2023 – A Medical Assessor found both a physical non-threshold injury and a psychological non-threshold injury. The Insurer lodged a review application for the physical threshold injury only. The Review Panel noted that the statutory question referred to the Panel is now spent because the Claimant had already demonstrated a non-threshold psychological injury.
Can the Review Panel dismiss the review application because the application was made for an “improper purpose” and because it was “lacking in substance”?
No, it cannot.
In IAG v Mangogna, the Principal Member rejected the request by the Review Panel to dismiss the review application. The Principal Member accepted the Insurer’s explanation that the status of the Claimant’s physical injuries had to be reviewed first because the cause of the Claimant’s psychological injuries was linked to the physical injury.
To see our full case note, click here.
23 October 2023 – A Claimant alleges she was starting a business when a motor accident intervened. She provides evidence to the Insurer that she had registered a company. Is that sufficient to demonstrate that the Claimant is “an earner”, thus allowing her to access the weekly payments contemplated by Div 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017?
No, it is not.
In Alzate v IAG, a Merit Reviewer found that a company is a separate legal entity from a Claimant. Setting up a company does not equal self-employment. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Claimant would be employed by the company. As such, for these reasons, the Claimant failed to demonstrate that she was “an earner”.
To see our full case note, click here.
16 October 2023 – A Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 2 July 2004. He lodges a claim form on 8 April 2021, following a 17 year delay, alleging injuries to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, both shoulders, both arms, both hips and developing a psychological injury.
The Medical Assessor determined none of the injuries referred for assessment were related to the accident and there was no assessable impairment.
The Claimant sought a review.
How does the Medical Review Panel consider whether the symptoms are related to the accident given the accident occurred so long ago?
In Gray v Allianz, the Medical Review Panel applied the test of causation to affirm the original decision because there was a break in chain of the medical evidence.
To see our full case note, click here.
9 October 2023 – A claimant suffers from a pre-existing major depressive disorder in partial remission. She’s subsequently involved in two motor accidents. Her depressive symptoms worsen after the subject motor accident. They are further exacerbated by the subsequent motor accident which results in a full relapse of her major depressive disorder.
How does the Medical Review Panel assess threshold injury where there are multiple causes?
In Aleksic v GIO, the Medical Review Panel found that the Claimant need only demonstrate that the subject accident aggravated, accelerated or exacerbated her pre-existing psychological condition.
To see our full case note, click here.
3 October 2023 – The Claimant seeks funding to undergo a lumbar spine fusion at L4/5. The Insurer denies the request because the surgery was caused by the Claimant’s pre-existing lumbar spine condition. The Medical Assessor determines the surgery was related to the accident and reasonable and necessary. The Insurer sought a review referring to the surveillance footage which revealed the Claimant being able to undertake various activities, which were inconsistent with his stated level of disability.
In QBE v Sukkar, the Review Panel reviewed the surveillance footage along with the other material to determine the surgery was related to the accident but was not satisfied the Claimant’s lumbar spine condition had significantly impacted on his activities of daily living, therefore the proposed surgery was not reasonable and necessary because it would not improve the Claimant’s quality of life.
Click here to read the full reasons.
27 September 2023 – A Claimant swerves to miss two deer running across the road. He hits an oncoming vehicle and is injured. He subsequently makes a common law damages claim.
Is the Claimant entitled to weekly benefits beyond 104 weeks because he has a “pending claim for damages” within the meaning of s 3.12(2)(a) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017?
In Karklins v QBE, the PIC Member held that the Claimant’s weekly benefits would not be extended because he had no-one to sue and, in effect, no “pending” damages claim.
To read the full reasons, click the link here.
25 September 2023 – A motor vehicle collides with a house and disturbs a quantity of asbestos, which the Claimant inhales. Does the possibility of developing an asbestos-related disease constitute an above-threshold injury?
No, it does not.
In IAG v Varghese, the Medical Review Panel found that the plain meaning of “personal or bodily injury” in s 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 is consistent with “an established physiological change”. A future possible physiological change, however, does not satisfy the definition. Given that the possible asbestos-related disease did not constitute an injury, it followed that it did not qualify as an above threshold injury.
To read the Review Panel’s full reasons, click here.
18 September 2023 – The Claimant was driving a motor vehicle in the right lane on the M7 Motorway. The other vehicle approached from behind at speed. The Claimant moved across to the left lane and sounded his horn to warn the other vehicle to slow down. The other vehicle did so. The Claimant attempted to merge into the right lane but collided with the other vehicle. The Claimant alleges the other vehicle was at fault.
Is the Claimant considered mostly at fault or wholly at fault for the accident?
In Richardson v Allianz, the Member found the Claimant was mostly at fault because he failed to exercise reasonable care by failing to maintain a safe speed and distance behind other vehicles, merged into the right lane when it was unsafe to do so and failed to keep a proper lookout prior to attempting a lane change.
Click here to read the full reasons.
11 September 2023 – The Claimant was involved in a high-speed motor vehicle accident. He was affected by drugs. After the accident, the Claimant behaved erratically. He started banging his head against the ground and had to be physically restrained by Police .
A PIC Medical Assessor found that the Claimant sustained a non-threshold injury to his head, in the nature of a mild traumatic brain injury. The Insurer argued, on review, that the Medical Assessor failed to address causation of the Claimant’s self-inflicted head trauma.
Does the Claimant need to show that the motor accident was the sole cause of his non-threshold, head injury?
No, he does not.
In NRMA v Le, the Review Panel found that it was sufficient for the Claimant to demonstrate that the accident was a contributing factor, which was more than negligible, and did not need to be the sole cause.
Click here to read the full reasons.
4 September 2023 – The Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident, during the course of his employment, as a company director. The Claimant is entitled to make a workers compensation claim but asserts lodging one would be unreasonable because the company did not hold any workers compensation insurance and as a company director, he would be exposed to reimbursement from the Nominal Insurer and prosecution under the Workers Compensation Act. The Claimant asserts there is no benefit from lodging a workers compensation claim and did not do so. The Claimant seeks the CTP insurer pay him statutory benefits.
Can the CTP Insurer refuse to pay statutory benefits in accordance with section 3.35 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017?
In Mitwari v Allianz, the Merit Reviewer said yes.
Click here to read the full reasons.
28 August 2023 – The Claimant makes a claim against an incorrect insurer. A damages dispute is lodged with the Commission within three years of the accident, albeit naming the wrong insurer. The Claimant then serves a common law damages claim form on the correct insurer, well outside the three year period for making a claim.
Can the Claimant join the correct insurer under rule 62 of the PIC Rules to the damages proceedings already before the Commission to cure the late claim issue?
In Curtin v NRMA, the Member found that there was no claim to be referred for assessment until the Claimant provided a full and satisfactory explanation for their late claim against the correct insurer.
Click here to read the full reasons.
21 August 2023 – An accident causes a scarring. There is some sensory loss in the immediate vicinity of the scar – as is generally found with any scar – but there is no extension of sensory loss which would suggest an injury to any nerve or any major branch of a nerve.
Has the Claimant sustained an above-threshold injury?
No, they have not.
The Medical Review Panel in Rios v AAMI agreed with an earlier decision in Eftikhari that a skin injury is a below threshold injury unless the injury involve injury to nerves, demonstrated by sensory loss, or a complete or partial rupture of tendons, ligaments, menisci or cartilage.
Click here to read the full Review Panel reasons.
14 August 2023 – The Claimant alleges sustaining injuries to his lumbar spine, left knee, right hip and right shoulder as a result of being knocked over by a reversing car. The Medical Assessor assessed 13% whole person impairment. In the assessment, the Claimant was unable to get onto the examination couch, could not take his shirt off and could not demonstrate the six range of movement to the Assessor.
What is the appropriate method to use to assess whole person impairment, if range of movement could not be used?
In GIO v Russell, the Review Panel reviews the other permitted methods in Chapter 3 of the AMA 4 to assess whole person impairment of the right shoulder.
Click here to read the full reasons.
7 August 2023 – A claimant commenced home renovations before their accident. They were unable to complete the renovations due to the injuries they sustained in a motor accident.
Can the claimant recover the external cost of completing the home renovations as a treatment expense under Part 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017?
No, they cannot.
In Warner v IAG, the Medical Review Panel found that whilst installing a grab rail might, for example, represent “treatment for the injured person” as required by s 3.24, the completion of partially completed home renovations is not “treatment for the injured person” within the meaning of that section. The renovations are not treating the injury per se.
Click here to read the full Review Pane reasons.
26 July 2023 – An Insurer suspends weekly payments because it has information that the Claimant has returned to work. The Claimant seeks merit review of that decision. The Merit Reviewer directs the Claimant to provide information and documents relevant to the issues in dispute. The Claimant fails to comply.
Can the Merit Reviewer dismiss the Claimant’s Merit Review Application?
Yes, they can.
In Younis v AAMI, the Merit Reviewer noted that the obligation to comply with directions made under s 49 of the PIC Act is mandatory and that PIC Rule 77 gave the Merit Reviewer power to dismiss the application for non-compliance.
View the case here.
19 July 2023 – Causation in threshold injury disputes. Does the Injured Person have to show that the subject accident was the sole cause of their above-threshold injury?
No, they do not.
The common law has long recognised that there may be multiple causes for an injury. It is sufficient that the tortious event represents a material contribution to the medical condition.
In the context of multiple accidents, an injured person might demonstrate that both motor accidents caused an above-threshold injury where the first accident caused the injury and the second accident simply made it worse. In that scenario, the second accident made a material contribution to the Claimant’s above-threshold injury even where it was not the primary cause.
To read the full Medical Review Panel reasons in QBE v Hoblos click here. Paragraphs 141 to 181 deal with causation.
13 July 2023 – A Claimant will likely require treatment after their damages claim resolves. Should their common law damages include a component for the cost of travelling to treatment providers.
No, it should not.
Section 4.5(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 does include a right to recover damages for increased accommodation or travel costs. But that section does not include travel or accommodation associated with treatment and care.
But the Injured Person is still covered.
Section 3.24 allows the Claimant to recover both treatment – and the reasonable and necessary travel and accommodation expenses incurred in obtaining treatment – as statutory benefit, even after the common law damages claim has concluded.
To see the full reasoning in Harrison v GIO, view the case here.
12 July 2023 – Can a Claimant lodge a Damages Dispute with the PIC before they have lodged a Damages claim form with the Insurer. No, they can’t. In the matter of Abid v GIO, the PIC member found that a premature damages dispute lodged with the Commission could not be cured by a subsequent Damages claim form lodged on the insurer.
Also of note, this was a late claim and the PIC Member found that a Miscellaneous Assessment could not be conducted in the context of a Damages Dispute. You need a separate application for that.
For more information, view the case here.