AAI Limited t/as GIO v Yin
[2025] NSWPIC 543
•13 October 2025
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | AAI Limited t/as GIO v Yin [2025] NSWPIC 543 |
| CLAIMANT: | Hang Yin |
| INSURER: | AAI Limited t/as GIO |
| MEMBER: | Hugh Macken |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 13 October 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; miscellaneous claims; settlement approval; motor vehicle accident whilst travelling on a bus; sudden breaking causing claimant to fall; left distal third humoral fracture; requirement for surgical repair; subsequent surgery to remove plate and screws; minor weakness and loss of abduction in left shoulder; concerns about heavy lifting or re-injuring arm; no entitlement to non-economic loss; calculation of past economic loss foreclosed period; allowance more than adequately covers loss including employer, and superannuation contribution; possible difficulties with left arm; restrictions on working as a geologist and undertaking fieldwork; adverse effect on post-accident employment tasks; calculation of basis of buffer for future economic loss; no allowance for past treatment as no recovery sought by insurer; provisions and claim processes in place for future treatment expenses; no requirement for voluntary or commercial domestic assistance; insurer to have credit for payments made for lost wages; Held – settlement approved. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL Issued under s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 The amount of the claim for damages is approved in the total amount of 1. $235,000. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
Dr Hang Yin (the claimant) is a 31-year-old man who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 5 October 2021. He was standing on a bus which braked suddenly and heavily causing him to fall and injure his left arm. He suffered an injury to the left side of his face and was taken by ambulance to Prince of Wales Hospital. He was diagnosed with a left distal third humoral fracture and underwent surgical repair on 8 October 2021. This required the insertion of a plate and 15 screws to stabilise the fracture site.
The proposed settlement approval, applying as it does the assessment criteria set out in the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 is $235,000 from which the insurer seeks a credit of $14,009.40.
Medical material
As set out above the claimant underwent surgery to his left arm about three days post-accident. He suffered significant and ongoing problems in the following years to both his left arm and shoulder. He advised at the preliminary conference that he became quite depressed as a consequence of the limitations he suffered particularly in the 10 months post-accident. In respect to his left arm, he continued to suffer problems and, in 2024, identified some irritation and changes in contour at the site of his earlier left arm surgery. Consequently, on 18 November 2024, he underwent a removal of the plate and screws at the hands of Dr Dao. Following this procedure there were three screws which were left in his upper arm as his bone had grown over the screws leaving them unable to be removed. He states and I accept, that he has well recovered in respect to his left arm injury. He has developed some minor weakness and loss of abduction in his left shoulder as a consequence of the impaired mobility and trauma he sustained because of the fractured left upper humerus.
The claimant has made a good recovery. He is able to play squash (he is right-handed) and attend at the gym. He does have some concerns in respect to his capacity to use his left arm in an unrestricted manner particularly noting the concern he has about the impaired range of motion of his shoulder and strength of his left upper limb generally.
The most recent medical report is from Dr Gothelf dated 24 June 2025 which identifies the claimant’s main concern:
"being his worry regarding any heavy lifting that he may drop something or re-injure something. I consider that this is a reasonable concern."
He notes the prognosis regarding the left elbow is good. He states the claimant is fit for full pre-injury work duties without restrictions.
Non-economic loss
The parties agree that there is no reasonable prospect that the claimant would be found to have an impairment, caused by the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident, of more than 10%. The report of Dr Gothelf identifies a 3% whole person impairment being 2% for scarring and 1% for impairment of the left upper extremity. There is no material to suggest that there are other body parts which would require assessment. There is nothing in the material to suggest that the claimant’s ongoing problems could possibly give rise to any impairment of greater than 10%. I agree with the parties that there ought to be no allowance made for non-economic loss.
Economic loss
The insurer has made an allowance of $35,000 for past economic loss from which the sum of $14,009.40 is to be deducted out on the basis of an allowance of in excess of $200 per week for 137 weeks (up to the time in which he commenced employment with the University of New South Wales as a full-time researcher and lecturer where he is currently employed on a salary of about $117,000 per year). This is more than he would have earned had he remained working as a tutor which was his only pre-accident income. The calculation for non-economic loss also takes into account a loss of opportunity to work as an Uber driver which the claimant had previously undertaken. The claimant confirmed at the assessment conference that he had not engaged in this employment since 2019.
Both parties agreed that the allowance for past economic loss, even allowing for the deduction of payments made by the insurer, more than adequately covers any loss sustained by the claimant including, as it does, a loss of employer superannuation contributions.
Future economic loss
The parties have agreed that a buffer for future economic loss would be allowed in the sum of $200,000. Whilst the claimant is currently in the process of seeking a section 189 Visa (Independent Migration Visa) he is currently, and will be for the next few years, working in accordance with a post-graduate working Visa.
The allowance for future economic loss takes into account any difficulties he may have with his left arm noting his intention to seek employment as a geologist and noting that such work may require physical work, in confined spaces, which may require some degree of dexterity and strength. The claimant’s post-accident disabilities could have an adverse impact on performing such tasks.
That said the allowance of $200,000 is, in fact, a buffer loosely based on a loss of $250 per week to age 67 even allowing for some discount for vicissitudes this figure is, in my view, a more than reasonable allowance for future economic loss. That is the impairment suffered by the claimant, as a consequence of the post-accident disabilities, may have some adverse impact on his earning capacity but such an impact is highly unlikely to lead to such a loss of earning capacity as has been allowed by the insurer and agreed between both parties.
Treatment expenses and domestic assistance
The remaining heads of damage which the claimant could recover relate to treatment expenses and domestic assistance. The insurer has made payments for the claimant's past treatment expenses and has confirmed that these payments will not be deducted from the proposed settlement figure. Additionally, I note that the claimant is still entitled to statutory benefits until October 2026 during which time the insurer will continue to meet all treatment expenses. Thereafter the claimant will still be entitled to treatment expenses under the CTP care provisions. Accordingly I make no allowance for past or future treatment expenses.
The claimant has confirmed that he has not received voluntary unpaid domestic assistance which exceeds six hours per week nor does he receive any ongoing domestic assistance. He lives in a unit in Kingsford with a flatmate and able to attend to all his domestic requirements without assistance. Accordingly I make no allowance for past or future domestic assistance.
It follows that the only claims which can be made by the claimant in this matter are past and future economic loss. As I have indicated above, I have absolutely no difficulty in approving this settlement noting that the allowance for both past and future economic loss more than adequately compensates for past wage loss and provides for any likely time off which may be required by the claimant as a result of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.
Conclusion
The settlement for damages of $235,000 is approved. I note the insurer is entitled to a deduction of $14,009.40 for payments made on the claimant’s behalf for past lost wages.
0
0
0