AAI Limited t/as GIO v Bakshi
[2023] NSWPIC 460
•11 September 2023
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | ||
| CITATION: | AAI Limited t/as GIO v Bakshi [2023] NSWPIC 460 | |
| CLAIMANT: | Urvi Bakshi | |
| INSURER: | GIO | |
| MEMBER: | Hugh Macken | |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 11 September 2023 | |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval; section 6.23; bus passenger; no representation by Australian Legal Practitioner; allowance $1,800; past economic loss of one weeks’ pay; medical material shows does not suffer any ongoing disability; anxious when travelling on buses; increased allowance for future economic loss; buffer for chance of loss of time off work; no ongoing sequalae; claimant quite debilitated post-accident; Held – settlement approved. | |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Issued under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
| |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
The claimant is a 60-year-old woman who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 5 March 2018 when the vehicle which she was driving was struck from behind and forced her into the vehicle in front. She sustained a fractured sternum when her chest hit the steering wheel. The air bags did not deploy. Subsequent investigations indicated she had suffered a fracture of her sternum.
The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the matter in the amount of $85,000 which includes payments made by the insurer totalling $27,012.13. This leaves a figure of $57,987.87 to the claimant. This settlement figure is made up of an amount of $35,000 for past economic loss and $50,000 for future economic loss.
I note the claimant has asked me to approve this figure although noting that she was seeking to negotiate a higher figure. Notwithstanding this I have no hesitation in approving the settlement in this matter.
Reasons
The claimant is employed in IT and Accounts with ICR Air Conditioning. She lives with her husband who works as a Service Manager with ICR Air Conditioning. She has 2 daughters and 3 grandchildren.
The insurer has admitted breach of duty of care with no allegation of contributory negligence. Negotiations between the parties occurred and the insurer increased its initial offer of $60,000 to $85,000. The only concern in respect to the approval of this matter is the concerns and reasons surrounding the claimant’s decision in December 2022 to go from full time employment to part time employment. This effectively led to a decrease in salary from about $160,000 per annum to about $80,000 per annum. The claimant said at the assessment conference that because she found difficulties coping with the demands of her work and so reduced her hours.
At the assessment conference there was lengthy discussion in respect to the medical material available in this matter. The insurer obtained a report from Dr J. Bentivoglio dated 3 December 2021. This report noted the only injury complained of was a fracture of the body of the sternum. He said:
“I would have expected she would not have been capable of doing her pre-accident home duties for a period of about 3 months.”
He goes on to note:
“This lady lost about 2 to 3 months off work then she had a graduated return to the workforce and eventually got back to doing her pre-injury duties. She copes with them.”
The claimant agreed she has not received any treatment for the injuries since about 2019. The only doctor she has consulted in respect to this injury is Dr N. Patel. In a report dated 12/12/2022 she states:
“She continues to have sternal discomfort with certain activities like lifting more than 5kgs. She is unable to do some exercises due to sternal discomfort. There (if) is no further treatment required for already healed sternal fracture but she is likely to get discomfort with certain activities for long time.”
The claimant agreed that she has been advised there is no medical reason given for the ongoing difficulties that she has. She has not received any treatment for some years. When it was suggested that some further time to investigate any reason for the significant ongoing discomfort she feels and any possible exacerbation of the pre-existing incontinence she suffered from she said that she has been told there is no medical investigations or analysis which would throw any light on her current problems.
Noting these matters and noting therefore that the reduction in hours from full time to part time after some 3 years of full-time work post-accident would not be able to be attributed to the sequalae of the accident it follows then that the allowance of $50,000 for future economic loss would reasonably cover any possible wage loss or reduction in earnings consequent on the motor vehicle accident.
Noting that the allowance for past economic loss is some $8,000 more than the payments made by the insurer, thereby covering any additional time off work not specifically compensated for by the insurer and noting the very significant buffer of $50,000 for any future impaired earning capacity I have no hesitation in approving this settlement.
The material does not bear out any association with the motor vehicle accident and the reduction in working hours. The claimant accepts this to be the case. The allowance for past economic loss covers all possible periods of lost wages. The claimant is fully aware of all these matters and confirms that she would like the matter closed and resolved in accordance with the agreement reached between the parties.
For the reasons above I have no hesitation in approving the settlement proposed in the documents signed by the parties.
Legislation
In making my decision I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:
· Motor Accident Injuries Act2017, Section 6.23 (3)
· Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, Section 7.37
0
0
0