AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Lazkani - [2025] NSWPICMP 181

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Lazkani [2025] NSWPICMP 181
CLAIMANT:	Jana Lazkani
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as AAMI
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Jeremy Lum
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Paul Friend
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Thomas Newlyn
DATE OF DECISION:	19 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; threshold injury dispute; preliminary question of jurisdiction namely whether a Review Panel can consider the review when no internal review was requested or made by the insurer in relation to alleged psychological injury; Review Panel satisfied it had jurisdiction; claimant is a minor and was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother; claimant involved in a motor accident and developed psychological symptoms which were not reported by her mother until some two years after the motor accident; Review Panel accepted history from claimant’s mother that there was delay in seeking treatment and seeing a GP because the mother had hoped the claimant’s psychological symptoms would resolve; causation was satisfied; Held –Review Panel re-examined claimant and found a generalised anxiety disorder which is not a threshold injury; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION 1. The Review Panel confirms the certificate of Medical Assessor Christopher Rikard-Bell dated 20 September 2023.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Jana Lazkani (the claimant) was involved in a motor accident on 10 February 2022. She was asleep in the right back seat of a car her mother was driving. A vehicle in front suddenly stopped and her mother was forced to quickly apply the brakes. A vehicle behind could not stop in time and crashed into the rear of their car, pushing them into the car in front.
Following the accident, she vomited a few times and had pain in her neck. Her general practitioner (GP) Dr Nayef Kanawati diagnosed her with a cervical spine injury with some intermittent right knee pain and referred her for physiotherapy.
The claimant also says she had psychological symptoms including anxiety, excessive worry and insomnia from the time of the motor accident. This was mentioned to her GP and she was referred for psychological treatment in mid-2024.
The claimant was 8 years of age at the time of the motor accident. Her mother, Katherine Lazkani, made a claim on her behalf for statutory benefits with AAMI (the insurer), the third-party insurer of the vehicle that she says caused the accident.
A medical dispute arose about whether the claimant’s psychological injury is a threshold injury or not a threshold injury and the matter was referred to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for medical assessment.
Her mother, Katherine Lazkani, retains authority to act on the claimant’s behalf in proceedings before the Commission.
Medical Assessor Home assessed the claimant’s physical injuries. In a Certificate dated

30 October 2023, Medical Assessor Home found accident-related soft tissue injuries to the claimant’s cervical spine and right knee. The Medical Assessor found the claimant’s physical injuries to be caused by the motor accident and was a threshold injury.
On 20 September 2023, Medical…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Lazkani and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 181
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited, trading as AAMI, and Ms. Lazkani were the parties involved in a dispute that reached the Review Panel under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The dispute centered on whether the Review Panel had the jurisdiction to consider the review of a claim for alleged psychological injury when no internal review had been requested or made by the insurer. The claimant, a minor who was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother at the time of a motor accident, developed psychological symptoms which were not reported by her mother until two years after the accident. The mother had hoped the symptoms would resolve on their own, which led to the delay in seeking treatment. The Review Panel found that causation was satisfied but re-examined the claimant and concluded that the claimant had a generalised anxiety disorder, which is not a threshold injury.

The legal issues before the court included the scope of the Review Panel's jurisdiction in cases where no internal review was requested or made by the insurer, and whether the Review Panel could consider a claim for psychological injury when there was a significant delay in reporting the symptoms. The court had to determine if the Review Panel had the authority to proceed with the review under these circumstances, and if the psychological condition suffered by the claimant qualified as a threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

The Review Panel held that it had jurisdiction to consider the review despite the absence of an internal review by the insurer. The court found that the delay in reporting the psychological symptoms did not preclude the Review Panel from considering the claim. The Panel re-examined the claimant and concluded that the claimant's condition was a generalised anxiety disorder, which is not listed as a threshold injury under the Act. The court was satisfied with the Panel's assessment and confirmed the Medical Assessment Certificate.

The final orders of the court were that the Review Panel's findings and conclusions were upheld, and the claimant's psychological condition did not qualify as a threshold injury. The Panel's jurisdiction to review the claim was affirmed, and the claim for compensation was assessed accordingly.

Orders