AAI Limited t/as GIO v Leverrier - [2025] NSWPICMP 781

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as GIO v Leverrier [2025] NSWPICMP 781
CLAIMANT:	Timothy Leverrier
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Terence Stern OAM
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Shane Moloney
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Christopher Oates
DATE OF DECISION:	9 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claimant suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident; Medical Assessor (MA) determined the claimant’s whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of injuries sustained in the accident was 13%; the insurer made an application under section 7.26 for referral of assessment to the Review Panel; the Review Panel conducted its own examination and found that WPI as a result of injuries sustained in the accident totalled 8%; certificate of MA revoked; Review Panel substituted 8% WPI as a result of the accident.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION 1. The Review Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Peter Giblin, dated 17 February 2025, and substitutes the determination to certify that the injuries referred to the Panel and caused by the accident, gave rise to a whole person impairment (WPI) of 8%.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

History of motor accident

On 21 August 2020, the claimant, Timothy Leverrier (Mr Leverrier), was riding a BMW 1000SR motorcycle at a speed of about 60kmph.
Mr Leverrier was wearing protective gear, riding boots, a padded jacket, leather gloves, a full-face helmet, and dress trousers. He had been stationery at a set of traffic lights and accelerated when the light turned green. Upon acceleration, an oncoming car suddenly turned right across his path and the motorcycle t-boned the car.
Mr Leverrier sustained injury when he was thrown off and slid across the ground.
Mr Leverrier has made this claim for personal injury damages.
On 17 February 2025 Medical Assessor Peter Giblin certified that the injuries caused by the motor accident had given rise to permanent impairment of 13%.
AAI Limited t/as GIO, the insurer, has sought a review of the determination of Medical Assessor Giblin.

Medical dispute

A medical dispute about the degree of Mr Leverrier’s whole person impairment (WPI) has arisen in connection with his claim. This constitutes a medical assessment matter under Schedule 2, cl 2(a) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
A medical assessment matter is determined in accordance with Division 7.5 of the MAI Act by a Medical Assessor: s 7.20 of the MAI Act.
The dispute was referred to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and the Commission assigned it to Medical Assessor Giblin for assessment.
On 3 February 2025, Medical Assessor Giblin assessed Mr Leverrier and on
17 February 2025, certified that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident,
Mr Leverrier sustained a WPI of 13%.

Review procedure

The insurer sought a review of the Medical Assessment under s 7.26 of the MAI Act (the Review). The application for referral of a medical assessment to a Review Panel (the Panel) was made by the insurer within 28 days after the parties…

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 GIO v Leverrier 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 781
Decision Date: 9 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited, trading as GIO, and Leverrier were before the Court in a matter involving the assessment of motor accident injuries. Leverrier, having sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The Medical Assessor appointed to evaluate Leverrier's injuries determined a whole person impairment (WPI) of 13% as a result of the accident. GIO, the insurer, contested this assessment and applied for a referral to a Review Panel under section 7.26 of the Act. The Review Panel conducted its own examination and ultimately concluded that Leverrier's WPI was 8%, differing from the initial assessment.

The legal issues at hand centred on the correctness of the initial Medical Assessor's assessment and the grounds for the referral to the Review Panel. GIO argued that the original assessment was flawed and that the referral was justified. Leverrier, on the other hand, contended that the initial assessment was accurate and that the Review Panel's intervention was unwarranted. The Court needed to determine whether the grounds for the referral were valid and whether the Review Panel's findings were justified.

The Court examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Review Panel's assessment was based on a thorough examination and a reasoned analysis of the medical evidence. The Court upheld the Review Panel's decision, concluding that the initial WPI assessment was indeed flawed and that the substituted 8% WPI was a more accurate reflection of Leverrier's injuries. The Court also found that the referral to the Review Panel was appropriate given the discrepancies in the assessments.

The Court ordered that the certificate of the original Medical Assessor be revoked and that the 8% WPI determined by the Review Panel be substituted as the correct assessment. The decision underscored the importance of thorough and evidence-based assessments in motor accident injury cases and highlighted the role of the Review Panel in ensuring the accuracy of such assessments.

Orders