AAI Limited t/as GIO v Soliman - [2025] NSWPICMP 686

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	AAI Limited t/as GIO v Soliman [2025] NSWPICMP 686
CLAIMANT:	Farid Soliman
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Bianca Montgomery-Hribar
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Wayne Mason
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Surabhi Verma
DATE OF DECISION:	9 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); threshold injury dispute; psychological injury; issues of causation; claimant examined; Held – claimant meets the criteria for adjustment disorder with anxiety caused by the accident; claimant meets criteria for persistent depressive disorder but this is not caused by the accident; MAC revoked.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION Issued under Division 7.5 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 1. The Review Panel: (a) revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Alexey Sidorov dated 22 February 2024, and (b) issues a new certificate determining that the injury caused by the motor accident, being adjustment disorder with anxiety related to driving, is a threshold injury for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

(c)

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

On 25 February 2019, Farid Soliman (claimant) was involved in a motor accident on the M5 when his vehicle was hit by a truck, causing his vehicle to hit both walls of the road and catch fire (accident).
The claimant made a claim for statutory benefits under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on AAI Limited t/as GIO (insurer).
A dispute has arisen between the insurer and the claimant as to whether the claimant’s psychological injuries are “threshold injuries” within the meaning and for the purposes of the MAI Act. Whether a person has suffered threshold injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident affects their entitlement to both statutory benefits and damages.[1]
[1] See ss 3.11, 3.28 and 4.4 of the MAI Act.
The dispute was referred to Medical Assessor Alexey Sidorov. On 13 February 2024, the claimant was assessed by Medical Assessor Sidorov. The Medical Assessor issued a certificate on 22 February 2024 certifying that the claimant’s persistent depressive disorder, caused by the motor accident, was a non-threshold injury for the purposes of the MAI Act.
The insurer lodged an application with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking a review of Medical Assessor Sidorov’s assessment. On 17 May 2024, a delegate of the President determined there was reasonable cause to suspect that the medical assessment was incorrect in a material respect, on the basis that Medical Assessor Sidorov failed to sufficiently engage with the evidence and did not address causation of the injury or psychiatric diagnosis. Accordingly, the delegate referred the application to a Review Panel.
This Review Panel (the Panel) has been constituted to conduct a review of Medical Assessor Sidorov’s certificate dated 22 February 2024.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Threshold injury (formerly minor injury) provisions

The Motor Accident Injuries Amendment Act 2022 (the MAI Amendment Act) was assented on 28 November 2022 with various amendments commencing on 1 April 2023. From 1 April 2023, the MAI Amendment Act provides that…

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.

Continue reading AAI Limited t/as GIO v Soliman

Details

AGLC: AAI Limited t/as GIO v Soliman [2025] NSWPICMP 686
Case: [2025] NSWPICMP 686
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AAI Limited, trading as GIO, brought a proceeding against Mr Soliman in the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the validity and extent of the medical assessment certificate (MAC) issued to Mr Soliman, which was related to injuries he claimed to have sustained in a motor accident. The court was asked to review the MAC and determine whether it accurately reflected Mr Soliman's injuries and their causal relationship to the accident.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Mr Soliman's psychological injuries met the statutory criteria set out in the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and, if so, whether those injuries were causally related to the motor accident. Specifically, the court needed to decide if Mr Soliman had adjustment disorder with anxiety and persistent depressive disorder, and if these conditions were caused by the accident. The court had to weigh the evidence provided by the parties and consider expert opinions.

The court found that Mr Soliman did indeed have adjustment disorder with anxiety, which met the criteria for a threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, and that this condition was causally linked to the motor accident. However, while Mr Soliman also had persistent depressive disorder, the court determined that this condition was not caused by the accident. Consequently, the court revoked the MAC to the extent it included the persistent depressive disorder.

The final orders of the court mandated the revocation of the MAC in relation to the persistent depressive disorder, while affirming the validity of the adjustment disorder with anxiety as a compensable injury arising from the motor accident.

Orders