Aleksic v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

In the matter of Aleksic v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, the claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident involving a kangaroo collision on 24 February 2020. The primary dispute centred on whether the claimant's injuries were classified as minor or non-minor under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The claimant had the burden of proving that the injuries sustained were not minor, necessitating a detailed medical assessment and interpretation of the statutory provisions and guidelines.

The central legal issues for the court to resolve were whether the injuries sustained by the claimant were of a minor nature, as concluded by the Panel, and if the claimant had successfully discharged the onus of proving otherwise. The interpretation of the term "minor injury" and its application to the symptoms described by the claimant, particularly in relation to radiculopathy and other symptoms, were critical to the outcome. The court needed to assess the evidence and expert opinions presented, particularly in light of the Motor Accident Guidelines and relevant case law, such as Briggs v IAG Ltd (No 2).

The court found that the claimant had not met the onus of proving that the injuries sustained were not minor. The Panel's conclusion that the claimant suffered a minor injury was upheld. The court determined that there was no evidence of radiculopathy in either the upper or lower limbs as defined by the Motor Accident Guidelines. The claimant's right knee complaint was linked to longstanding pathology from a prior knee replacement, and the symptoms described did not meet the criteria for radiculopathy. Additionally, the degenerative changes in the cervical spine were longstanding and not attributable to the motor accident. Therefore, the court affirmed the findings that the claimant sustained minor injuries to the cervical and lumbar spines. The determinations made were consistent with the Medical Assessment Certificate.

The final orders confirmed the Panel's decision, upholding the classification of the claimant's injuries as minor and dismissing the claimant's application for compensation beyond the minor injury threshold.