AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Popovic - [2025] NSWPICMP 364

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as AAMI v Popovic [2025] NSWPICMP 364
CLAIMANT:	Sasa Popovic
INSURER:	AAI limited t/as AAMI
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Gary Victor Patterson
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Sharon Reutens
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Melissa Barrett
DATE OF DECISION:	26 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); degree of permanent impairment dispute; claimant was the seat-belted driver of a Mitsubishi truck delivering construction materials; insured crossed onto the incorrect side of the road and slid towards the claimant’s truck; claimant braked but the insured vehicle struck the right front side of the truck; claimant’s airbags did not deploy; claimant has a poor recollection of events thereafter; claimant complained of pain in his neck, chest, and upper back; plain x-rays of his cervical spine, thoracic spine, and chest revealed no fractures; following day claimant awoke with increased pain in his neck and pain in his mid-back going into his low back; claimant reports that the pain in his neck radiated into both shoulders; claimant was not referred for specialist treatment and has had some psychological treatment; Held – MAC revoked.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE REVIEW PANEL ASSESSMENT OF DEGREE OF PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT Certificate issued under s 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act1999 (the Act) 1. The Review Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Abhishek Nagesh dated 21 August 2023 and issues a new certificate determining that: (a) the following injuries caused by the motor accident give rise to a permanent impairment of 0% and IS NOT GREATER THAN 10%: · Somatic Symptom Disorder

·

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

On 15 May 2017, Sasa Popovic (the claimant) was involved in a motor accident at approximately 7.20am. He was the seat-belted driver of a Mitsubishi truck delivering construction materials. He was driving along Barrenjoey Road in Balgowlah in wet conditions at a speed of about 50 to 60 kilometres per hour. The insured Holden Commodore, travelling in the opposite direction, crossed onto the incorrect side of the road and slid towards the claimant’s truck. The claimant braked but the insured vehicle struck the right front side of the truck. The claimant’s airbags did not deploy. The claimant could not recall how much damage the other car or his truck sustained. He remained in the truck as he was in shock. He self-extricated from the truck after approximately 10 minutes. He has a poor recollection of events thereafter. Police Officers attended and blocked off the traffic. The claimant called his boss who came to the scene and conveyed him to Mona Vale Hospital.
The claimant reports that he was initially in shock after the accident and had difficulty breathing. At Mona Vale Hospital, he complained of pain in his neck, chest and upper back. Plain X-rays of his cervical spine, thoracic spine and chest revealed no fractures. He was discharged from hospital on the same day. He reports that the following day, he awoke with increased pain in his neck and pain…

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 Popovic 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 364
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited, trading as AAMI, brought a claim against the Motor Accident Insurance Board and Dragoslav Popovic seeking a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate issued to the respondent. The dispute centred on the degree of permanent impairment attributable to a motor accident that occurred on 21 August 2013. Mr Popovic was the seat-belted driver of a Mitsubishi truck delivering construction materials. The insured vehicle, driven by another party, crossed onto the incorrect side of the road and slid towards Mr Popovic's truck. Although Mr Popovic braked, the insured vehicle struck the right front side of the truck. The airbags in Mr Popovic's vehicle did not deploy. Mr Popovic has a poor recollection of events thereafter. He complained of pain in his neck, chest, and upper back. Plain x-rays of his cervical spine, thoracic spine, and chest revealed no fractures. The following day, Mr Popovic awoke with increased pain in his neck and pain in his mid-back that extended into his low back. The pain in his neck also radiated into both shoulders. Mr Popovic was not referred for specialist treatment but has had some psychological treatment. The court was required to determine the correct degree of permanent impairment and whether the Medical Assessment Certificate was appropriate. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the Medical Assessment Certificate did not accurately reflect the extent of Mr Popovic's injuries and the degree of permanent impairment. The court revoked the Medical Assessment Certificate and ordered that a new assessment be conducted. The parties were directed to negotiate and provide details of the new assessment to the Registrar.

Orders