Peter Hunt
Consultant
CTP Insurance, Insurance
Spinal Nerve Root Injury? Show Me the (Radicular) Signs!
16 February, 2026
In Brief
- Clause 4(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (MAIR) provides that a spinal nerve root injury, manifesting in neurological signs, is still a soft tissue injury unless those neurological signs constitute radiculopathy.
- Clause 5.8 of the Motor Accident Guidelines (MAGs) provides that an injured person must demonstrate at least two of the five recognised signs of radiculopathy.
- If an injured person demonstrates only one sign of radiculopathy, clause 5.8 of the MAGs is not satisfied, and their injury will be deemed a threshold injury.
Facts
The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) published its decision in Morrison v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 79 on 13 February 2026.
The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 23 August 2023.
The Insurer denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits and common law damages on the grounds that the only injury the Claimant sustained was a threshold injury, within the meaning of s 1.6(2) of MAIA.
The primary Medical Assessor concluded that the Claimant’s cervical spine injury was a threshold injury for the following reasons:
- There was no evidence of radiculopathy and no evidence of any disc rupture.
- Any injury at C3 was not capable of causing radiculopathy because there is no myotome, reflect or stretch test referable to that level.
- The accident only caused an aggravation of right C3/4 and left C2/3 facet joints.
The Claimant successfully sought referral to the Medical Review Panel.
The Review Panel’s Decision
The Review Panel agreed that the Claimant’s cervical spine injury was a threshold injury, for the following reasons:
- The evidence established that the nature of the accident could have caused a cervical spine injury and that the accident did, in fact, cause a left-sided C3 nerve root injury.
- The evidence did not establish a C2/3 disc bulge or protrusion or a facet joint capsule injury. It follows that the accident did not cause a “complete or partial rupture of tendons, ligaments, menisci or cartilage” which would have taken the injury outside the statutory definition of “soft-tissue injury” in s 1.6.
- Whilst the C3 nerve root injury is “an injury to nerves“, clause 4(1) of MAIR provides that a spinal nerve root injury, manifesting in neurological signs, is still a soft tissue injury unless those neurological signs constitute radiculopathy. Furthermore, clause 5.8 of the MAGs requires that an injured person demonstrate at least two of the five recognised signs of radiculopathy.
- It is rare for an injury to C3 to cause radiculopathy.
- In this case, the Claimant only demonstrated one sign of cervical radiculopathy. He did not demonstrate two signs as required by clause 5.8 of the MAGs.
Why This Case is Important
The decision in Morrison provides a useful illustration of how the provisions relating to physical threshold injuries must be read together. In broad terms:
- Section 1.6(2) of MAIA provides a broad definition of what constitutes a “soft tissue injury“, with both examples and exceptions.
- Clause 4(1) of MAIR clarifies when an injury to a spinal nerve root falls inside or outside the definition of “soft tissue injury” by reference to the presence of “radiculopathy“.
- Clause 5.8 of the MAGs further clarifies what symptoms and signs constitute “radiculopathy” and confirms that two signs are required.
The decision in Morrison also confirms that an injury to a spinal nerve root remains a soft tissue injury if there is only one sign of radiculopathy stemming from that injury.
If you would like to discuss this case note, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with CTP Practice Group Leader Peter Hunt today.
