Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Eskandar

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Eskandar [2025] NSWPICMP 417
CLAIMANT:	Paulette Eskandar
INSURER:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Alexander Bolton
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Michael Hong
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Himanshu Singh
DATE OF DECISION:	13 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); claimant involved in a hit and run; claimant assessed for physical whole person impairment (WPI) at 0%; claimant assessed by Medical Assessor as having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and WPI of 15%; Held – the claimant assessed as having PTSD and assessed a WPI of 8%; MAC revoked; new certificate issued.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION 1. The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Fukui dated 13 November 2023. 2. The Panel diagnoses the claimant as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident on 23 December 2020. 3. The Panel assesses whole person impairment at 8%.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

This is an application by the insurer for review of a certificate and reasons of Medical Assessor Fukui (the Medical Assessor) dated 13 November 2023.
The Medical Assessor found that the claimant had suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the subject accident and assessed whole person impairment (WPI) at 15%.
There is a dispute between the claimant and the insurer about the degree of permanent impairment under Schedule 2, s 2(a) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act).
The following injuries were referred by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for assessment:
(a) post-traumatic stress disorder.

The accident

The accident occurred on 23 December 2020.
The claimant described the circumstances of the accident to the Medical Assessor as follows:
“Ms Eskander was driving back from the city with her then 8-year-old daughter. Her daughter was in the front passenger seat. She heard a massive bang while driving as she was rear-ended by another vehicle. She stated that she felt “shock, paralysed and numb”. Her car would not move, and she was on the motorway. No one stopped to assist, and she thought that she and her daughter were going to die. A man on a bicycle helped to move her car onto the side lane. She was fearful of being run over. She called the police twice. She waited for two hours until the tow truck came. Police and ambulance did not arrive. It was a hit and run and she later heard that the offending vehicle had caused further accidents. She called a friend who took her to the police station to make a statement. Her car was subsequently repaired.”

Bundles of documents

The parties have each presented their respective bundles of documents upon which they rely. The Panel have read all the documentation. If a particular document is not referred to by the Panel, this does not mean that the Panel or a Panel Member has not read it, in much the same manner as parties not referring to or not specifically relying on a document in their own bundle and submissions.
The fact that evidence is not referred to in these reasons does not mean it has been overlooked and nor is it required that each piece of evidence be mentioned – see WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2003) 75 ALO 630 at [46].The Panel is not required to “analyse every piece of information from every opinion contained in a document with which he [it] was provided” – see Farr v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1435 at [46]. The Panel has come to its own conclusion and has taken its own history.

Insurer’s submissions

The insurer submits that the Medical Assessor failed to engage, or properly engage, with the evidence provided by the parties and the parties’ submissions particularly with respect to the claimant’s pre-accident medical history.
The insurer noted that on page 3 of her certificate, the Medical Assessor recorded the following pre-accident injury:
“She denied a significant medical history. She denied any substance use. She stated that she had previously seen a psychologist for personal reasons and issues for which she needed guidance during 2014 to 2017. She stated that her sessions were for personal reasons and that she was still functioning, and they were not clinically significant. She was not prescribed any psychotropic medications. She denied a previous motor vehicle accident. She stated that she was enjoying her life and was happy. She was independent. She enjoyed activities such as dancing, going on long drives and to the beach. She enjoyed baking cakes and biscuits. She socialised with family and friends”
The insurer referred to page 7 of the certificate, where the Medical Assessor stated as follows; ‘Ms Eskandar did not have a prior psychiatric history’.
The insurer noted the internal inconsistency between the above two extracts and submits that the Medical Assessor’s comments are in both respects inconsistent with the evidence that was provided by the parties. The insurer submits that the above comments support a finding that the Medical Assessor failed to engage, or engage properly, with the clinical records and the insurer’s submissions.
The insurer noted that in its original submissions dated 19 May 2023, it specifically addressed the claimant’s pre-accident psychological history with reference to the clinical records from Marketplace Mediclinic and Mr Gareth Wild, treating psychologist.
The insurer submits that while the Medical Assessor took a history of attendances between 2014 and 2017, she made no mention of the claimant’s continued attendances throughout 2019, including approximately 12 months prior to the subject accident, notwithstanding that this history was explicitly raised in the insurer’s submissions.
The insurer submits that it is notable that the claimant reported to her general practitioner (GP) on 12 October 2019 symptoms of ‘anxiety… low mood, poor socialisation with others, not interested in life, or going outside, or sport, sleep very disturbed… denies any triggers for this depression’. The insurer says that these symptoms are very similar to the social restrictions reported by the claimant as a result of the subject accident.
The insurer submits that at no stage did the Medical Assessor engage with the claimant’s pre- accident attendances after 2017, notwithstanding the subject accident occurred in 2020 and with a continued reference to psychological symptoms in the intervening period.
The insurer submits that, based on a reading of the certificate, it appears the Medical Assessor relied on the claimant’s self-reporting without cross-referencing this with the provided documentation and contemporaneous clinical records. Thereafter, the Medical Assessor failed to engage with the claimant and to put inconsistencies to her for comment.
The insurer submits that the Medical Assessor’s failure to engage with the pre-accident history and above inconsistencies is particularly significant in circumstances where the insurer explicitly raised in its submissions concerns that the opinions of Dr Rastogi and
Dr Anand were premised on an incomplete and inaccurate pre-accident medical history.
The insurer also submits that the Medical Assessor erred in her use of the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS), specifically by failing to have regard to the impact of the claimant’s physical restrictions on her activities of daily living.
The insurer submits that the impact of the claimant’s physical restrictions was raised in its submissions, and the Medical Assessor herself recorded only chronic pain symptoms which required continued treatment. The insurer submits that the Medical Assessor failed to actively engage with this issue or adequately distinguish between physical and psychological restrictions.
The insurer noted that under the heading ‘History of symptoms and Treatment following the motor accident’, the Medical Assessor did not appear to enquire into the claimant’s current physical restrictions, instead limiting her enquires to the claimant’s psychological complaints.
The insurer submits that it was incumbent on the Medical Assessor to inform herself of the impact of any physical restrictions due to the operation of cl 6.215 of the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines), which states, ‘The PIRS must not be used to measure impairment due to somatoform disorders or pain’.
The insurer submits that this clause gives rise to a requirement that a distinction be made in any assessment between physical and psychological restrictions when assessing permanent impairment, to ensure an accurate determination has been reached.
The insurer submits that while the Medical Assessor acknowledged that she had been provided with a copy of Medical Assessor Shahzad’s physical WPI certificate, she nevertheless did not engage with the contents of that certificate.
The insurer submits that this is significant as Medical Assessor Shahzad took a comprehensive history of the claimant’s physical complaints, including the following:
“Ms Eskandar has neck pain, shoulder pain on the front and back, alternating back pain and shooting pain. She has pins, needles, and numbness in the last two to three fingers of the hand. She reports that she has developed tingling pain and numbness in the feet for which investigation was done and which revealed no abnormality. She states that when she develops pain across the neck, she starts to experience migraines, dizziness, and nausea and she becomes bedbound which happens on a weekly basis.”
The insurer submits that such significant physical symptoms are clearly relevant during any consideration of any other impairment caused by psychological symptoms. The insurer says that in other words, if the claimant is rendered bed-bound once per week due to her physical symptoms, the insurer submits that it is reasonable to expect consideration would be given to this history during the psychological assessment.
Further, the insurer says that Medical Assessor Shahzad took a history that the claimant considered that work aggravated her physical pain levels and that her work hours were further reduced due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The insurer submits that such issues are clearly relevant to an assessment of ‘adaption’ attributable to any psychological injuries, as distinct from the physical and unrelated factors.
The insurer submits that instead, the Medical Assessor does not appear to have engaged with this evidence or given any active consideration to the claimant’s physical pain complaints, other than merely recording the existence of this.
In this context, the insurer submits that it is significant that the Medical Assessor personally took a history from the claimant that she suffered from chronic pain that was ongoing and for which she continued to receive treatment by way of pain medications and physiotherapy.
The insurer submits that noting this history, the Medical Assessor did not make any distinction in the PIRS scale between the claimant’s physical and psychological complaints. In particular, the insurer submits that with respect to adaptation, Medical Assessor Fukui recorded that ‘she only works because she wants some “normality” in her life but comes home tired and lacking in energy’.
The insurer also submits that the accuracy of the Medical Assessor’s assessments for Social and Recreational Activities, and Social Functioning, is called into question in light of the claimant’s very similar pre-accident history of symptoms and the Medical Assessor’s failure to identify this.
No reasons were provided with respect to the impact of the claimant’s physical injuries on her functionality, notwithstanding the requirement of cl 6.215 of the Guidelines and the clear physical restrictions raised in the insurer’s submissions and the contemporaneous certificate of Medical Assessor Shahzad.
The insurer has referred to the claimant undergoing a Vocational and Functional Assessment on 4 December 2024. The insurer noted that the examiners could not identify any significant dysfunction as a result of the subject accident. The insurer says that the claimant was described as ‘self-limiting’ and ‘no pathology was identified that would prevent her from performing her pre-injury duties in an unrestricted manner’.
The insurer submits that the claimant was considered capable of resuming her pre-injury duties as a customer service agent, administrative assistant and office manager. The assessors also considered the claimant is capable of a range of other occupations with similar physical demands.
The insurer has submitted that during the vocational assessment, the claimant’s scores were deemed unreliable on the basis that they were inconsistent with the claimant’s education and work history. The insurer say that the claimant’s general reasoning score was lower than below average and the well-below average range, which the examiners considered to be:
“… Simply implausible and is not consistent with [the claimant’s] past or current work, motivational factors may account for her unusually low scores, [the claimant’s] general reasoning score cannot be accounted for by her reported infirmities.”
The insurer says that in its initial submissions dated 21 December 2023, it noted that the claimant provided an inaccurate history with respect to her pre-accident psychological symptoms and complaints. The insurer submits that relevantly, the vocational assessors conducted a number of tests which exceeded the threshold for symptom exaggeration and possible malingering. The Panel is asked to carefully consider the above factors before accepting the claimant’s self-reporting.
The insurer submits that the vocational assessment report should be carefully considered when assessing ‘adaption’ under the PIRS assessment. It is submitted that the claimant’s actual capacity for employment is greater than she demonstrates or reports.
Regarding the claimant’s physical injuries, these were initially assessed by Medical Assessor Shahzad and later by a Review Panel. The Review Panel diagnosed musculoligamentous injuries to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder and thoracic spine, as well as a partial tear of the superior subscapularis tendon in the left shoulder, giving rise to 0% WPI.
The insurer submits that the claimant has a relevant pre-accident history of psychological complaints and symptoms which ought to be carefully considered when determining the degree of WPI arising from the subject accident.

Claimant’s submissions

The claimant referred to the insurer’s argument that the claimant had a pre-existing psychiatric condition. The GP records show a complaint of anxiety on 12 October 2019. In response, the claimant disputes the relevance of an isolated psychological complaint that was taken over a year prior to the accident. The claimant says that this was the only psychological complaint in the GP records in the 43 months leading up to the subject accident. In the claimant’s submission, it was completely open and clinically justified for the Medical Assessor to deny the existence of a prior psychiatric condition on the face of the available evidence.
The claimant also referred to clinical notes of 30 August 2020 where it was recorded that there was no evidence of an anxiety disorder. This was four months prior to the accident.
The claimant submits that the insurer has failed to demonstrate that the claimant was suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the accident, which is required to have been accounted for in the permanent impairment calculations. The claimant was not experiencing a pre-existing impairment that was relevant and present at the time of the accident in light of an isolated incident that affected the claimant more than a year prior to the accident.
The claimant addressed the argument of the insurer that the claimant’s pain is responsible for her reported restrictions. The claimant says that this disregards the extent of her reported psychological complaints. The claimant says that chronic pain is not responsible for the following symptoms and complaints:
(a)    experiences tachycardia and nausea especially when she witnesses other accidents as it reminds her of the subject accident;
(b)    she feels depressed and is easily startled and always feel on edge. She feels as if something bad is going to happen. She constantly checks the rear-view mirror when driving. She often cries because the symptoms have not been getting better. She has intrusive thoughts about the accident with nightmares and flashbacks occurring a few times a week. Her sleep is disrupted;
(c)    she worries obsessively about her children having an accident. She reported feeling very angry and frustrated with mood swings. She feels inadequate because she has to depend on her husband and her mother;
(d)    she experiences poor focus and anxiety;
(e)    the claimant gave up her jobs in a law firm and accounting business. She continues to work for Menzies Aviation but has reduced her hours to 18 hours per week. She stated that she works to have some “normality” in her life. She lacks energy and can’t bring herself to do things as she has no desire;
(f)    experiences anxiety especially when in a car;
(g)    sometimes she does not want to eat for two or three days but binge eats. She stated that her appetite depends on her mood;
(h)    the claimant no longer cooks or cleans, and
(i)    her self-care has declined, and she does not want to shower daily. She showers only twice a week and wears her uniform to work. She wears the same outfit for three or four days when at home.
The claimant says that the Medical Assessor did consider the potential impact of her chronic pain to her functioning when she reported;
“Her chronic pain symptoms also remind her daily of the subject motor accident. Her symptoms fulfil DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. There are no other diagnoses or reasons which explain all her symptoms.”
The claimant addressed the insurer’s submission that the Medical Assessors assessment of a Class 3 impairment for adaptation is incorrect. The claimant said at the time of the accident she had three jobs. Following the accident, she was only able to work one job and for no longer than 18 hours per week.
The claimant submits that a class 2 impairment determination for adaptation is an illogical determination in light of all of the available evidence. The claimant says that it is significant that both the insurer’s qualified psychiatrist Dr Anand, and the claimant’s psychiatrist
Dr Rastogi, identically assessed a class 3 impairment for adaptation. The claimant says that this was also the Medical Assessors conclusion.
The claimant relies on a report of Dr Rastogi who assessed 17% permanent impairment as
follows:
(a)    Self-care and personal hygiene – Class 3;
(b)    Social functioning and recreational activities – Class 2;
(c)    Concentration pace and persistence – Class 3, and
(d)    Adaptation – Class 3.
The claimant referred to the assessment of Dr Anand, psychiatrist, and arranged by the insurer of the claimant. This examination took place on 27 August 2022 and following the examination. Dr Anand provided a report dated 5 September 2022. Dr Anand assessed the claimant’s whole person impairment at 15%. The claimant submits that the report or
Dr Anand only supports the claimant’s position that her injuries exceed 10% permanent impairment.
The claimant submits that the findings of Dr Rastogi and Dr Anand on assessment are indicative of a permanent impairment rating exceeding the 10% threshold.

Medical evidence

Pre-existing psychological condition

Records from Marketplace Mediclinic confirm that the claimant attended on 30 March 2016 for ‘counselling, stopped talking to her mum, strict Christian upbringing, some regrets’. The claimant was referred to a psychologist.

On 17 May 2017, the claimant attended upon her GP and the following history was taken;
“Depression and anxiety, ongoing issues , her son is autistic, poor sleep , poor concentration, no interest in socialising , withdrawn from family and friends, nil suicidal ideations, lack of interest in enjoyable activities, feeling low mood and irritable, nil weight changes, feeling tearful, nil alcohol or substance misuse, nil suicidal ideations, has supportive family, counselling and advise, mental health plan arrangement referral for the psycho…”
On 15 November 2017, Mr Wild, treating psychologist, noted that the claimant was suffering with symptoms of ‘depression and anxiety’. The claimant was said to have recorded extremely severe levels of depression, severe levels of anxiety and moderate levels of stress.
On 28 June 2019, the claimant reported ‘tiredness and wt gain’.
On 12 October 2019, the claimant reported:
“stress + anxiety, ongoing issues but having a flare up now, low mood, poor socialisation with others, not interested in life, or going outside, or sport. Sleep, very disturbed, denies suicidal ideations/thoughts, denies any triggers for this depression, denies alcohol or drugs, home situation, great/supportive, she doesn’t want long terms meds, no antidepressant, she has been taking deep breathe.”
In the claimant’s application for personal injury benefits dated 19 January 2021, the claimant makes no reference to psychological symptoms.

Post accident psychiatric condition

On 5 March 2021, Dr Lim diagnosed the claimant with ‘PTSD’.
An initial Certificate of Capacity dated 5 March 2021 diagnosed the claimant with ‘PTSD’. A pre-accident history of ‘anxiety and depression’ was noted.
An initial Allied Health Recovery Request (AHHR) dated 16 April 2021 diagnosed the claimant with ‘Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder’ with associated symptoms including low mood, irritability, impaired memory and concentration, anxious and depressive cognitions, rumination, intrusive thoughts and unwanted memories of the accident.
A further AHRR dated 23 July 2021 states that the claimant’s pre-accident psychological history is ‘unremarkable’. (The insurer submits that this is inconsistent with the available pre-accident records, which confirm psychological symptoms including anxiety and depression).
The insurer has obtained a report of Dr Anand, psychiatrist, dated 5 September 2022.
Dr Anand assessed 15% WPI.
Regarding this examination and finding by Dr Anand, for the insurer, the insurer has submitted that, in the absence of Medicare/PBBS records at the time of his assessment, the insurer considers that Dr Anand’s assessment may be incorrect on the basis that his opinion was based upon an incorrect history. Specifically, Dr Anand was provided a history that she last had psychological symptoms about five years prior to the examination which is inconsistent with the history outlined above.
Medical Assessor Home assessed the claimant’s physical injuries with respect to her having suffered a threshold injury He concluded that injuries to the claimant’s cervical spine, right shoulder, left shoulder and thoracic spine were all threshold injuries.
There are numerous medical reports and records referred to by Medical Assessor Home that had not been made available to the Panel. Medical Assessor Home provided the following summary of medical evidence made available to him;
“Personal Injury Claim Form, 19 January 2021 documents an accident in which the claimant was driving home, southbound on the Eastern Distributor, Kensington when hit by another vehicle at the rear right hand side with force. The impact was severe, rending the car undrivable as the driver's side rear tyre was busted and buckled. Also damage to the rear and side body work of the vehicle. It is submitted that the driver of the other vehicle was subsequently caught after smashing into three other vehicles.
Certificate of Capacity, 11 March 2021 refers to cervical spine strain, bilateral shoulder strain, lumbar spine L2/3 disc herniation/protrusion is completed by Dr Calvache-Rubio. First Certificates of Capacity document similar diagnoses.
Health summary from Workers Doctors has been reviewed. Dr Lim, 5 March 2021 documents the subject accident with treatment referred to as physiotherapy, psychological therapy, referral to spinal surgeon, Dr Singh.
On 11 March 2021, Dr Calvache-Rubio documents neck and lower back pain.
Notation of Dr Khong, 14 April 2021 documents complaints of neck and trapezius pain, lower back pain, posterior right thigh pain.
I reviewed the Allied Health Recovery Requests which also documents complaints of neck pain, cervicogenic headache and lower back pain with referred symptoms. There is documentation of restricted cervical and lumbar spine motion. No discrete radicular findings are documented.
Report of Dr David Lieu, Sydney West Orthopaedics dated 17 June 2021 refers to complaints of left shoulder pain. There was restricted left shoulder motion. He found the MRI scan showed a partial upper border tear of the subscapularis which was considered to be not currently symptomatic and not the cause of her symptoms. He found sprain to the periscapular muscles and paraspinal strap muscles with persisting scapulothoracic dysrhythmia. He did not find there to be any surgical intervention. He referred the claimant for MRI scans of the left scapula.”
Regarding the tear to the claimant’s left shoulder tear, Medical Assessor Home said;
“I agree with the opinions expressed by the treating shoulder surgeon, Dr Leiw that the clinical presentation is not consistent with a rotator cuff tear. In that regard, there is no lateral shoulder pain. Impingement signs are negative. There is. no pain with resisted movements across the rotator cuff. There is no evidence of rotator cuff weakness. There is prominent referred pain in the superoposterior shoulder girdle in the region of the levator scapula and trapezius muscles, secondary to her neck complaint. 'Therefore the shoulder condition is referred pain related to the whiplash associated disorder arising from the subject motor vehicle accident.”
Medical Assessor Home found that the claimant had suffered threshold injuries.
A WPI assessment of 2% was determined by Medical Assessor Shahzad in his certificate of 8 October 2023. This was represented by 1% WPI for each shoulder.
A Review Panel certificate dated 12 September 2024 revoked the certificate of Medical Assessor Shahzad and determined that the claimant had 0% WPI.
The Panel did not consider any pain arising from the claimant’s left shoulder and whether she had suffered a tear. With respect to disc bulges in the claimant’s back the Panel determined that these were degenerative in nature and not caused by the accident.
Medical Assessor Fukui diagnosed the claimant with post-traumatic stress disorder and assessed WPI at 15%. Her PIRS assessment was as follows:

Psychiatric diagnoses	1. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
Psychiatric treatment description	Anti-depressant medication and psychological therapy.

Category	Class	Reason for Decision
1. Self Care and Personal Hygiene	3	Ms Eskander only showers twice a week and wears the same clothes for three or four days at home. She stopped cooking and doing housework and relies on her family to help. Her mother has to sometimes take over the care of her 11-year-old daughter. She sometimes does not eat for 2 or 3 days.
2. Social and Recreational Activities	3	She has become socially withdrawn and just wants to be left alone. She stopped visiting friends and family and avoids attending events. She feels disconnected from people. She rarely replies to messages.
3. Travel	2	She only drives out of necessity and only to go to work and in her local area. She relies on her husband to drive her.
4. Social Functioning	2	Her relationship with her family has declined with increased arguments with her husband. Her relationship with her sons is also strained. She has cut off contact from friends. She is sometimes unable to take care of her young daughter.
5. Concentration, Persistence and Pace	2	She has difficulty with her concentration and focus and works at a slower pace. She quit her job with the law firm and accounting business because she no longer can prepare documents or type.

6. Adaptation	3	She has had to give up work in the law firm and accounting business but continues to work 18 hours per week in the office at Menzies Aviation. She only works because she lacking in energy.
List classes in ascending order: 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3
Median Class Value: 3
Aggregate Score: 15
Whole Person Impairment: 15%

Medical examination

The claimant was examined by Medical Assessor Hong and Medical Assessor Singh on
5 May 2025. Their report follows:
Reasons
Who attended the assessment
Video assessment. Medical Assessor Singh and Medical Assessor Hong assessed the claimant.

History
Psychosocial history and pre-accident history
Background:
Ms Eskander was born in Australia and grew up with her parents.
She had a happy childhood and was not exposed to any abuse. She said she had a strict upbringing due to her religion, and it was nothing bad.
In terms of general medical history, she does not have cardiac, thyroid or liver disease.
Ms Eskander said she occasionally drinks a nip of whiskey before bed to help her sleep. She does not have drug or alcohol problems.
She is not aware of a family history of mental illness.
She does not have a forensic history.
Ms Eskander has not had a previous motor accident.
Past psychiatric history:
In terms of past history, the Panel began by reading out the entries in Ms Eskander's file and she said that the three months before the accident, it was not anxiety but because of the chronic hip pain, she worried and thought it could be cancer, but she functioned very well at the time because she had three jobs. She also said that her doctor wrote that there were no signs of anxiety before that. Ms Eskander said that even in October 2019, she was perfect. The Panel discussed the symptoms recorded at the time, she said that her doctor wrote the wrong information and simply copied the history from 2017 to 2019, and he made mistakes with some of the history such as her son having autism, as well. The Panel discussed that the entries were quite different, because in 2017 there was a family issue and in 2019 there was no family issue, and did not seem like a copy and paste. Ms Eskander said the issue in 2017 was a personal reason and that it is already in her file. She saw a psychologist because she had an abortion and that was a difficult thing for the family because of their religion. She said she never took antidepressants. Even with the Diazepam, 3 months before the accident, she said it might have been prescribed, but she never took it.
Ms Eskander said she had psychologist treatment around 12 times, the last time was in November 2017 with Dr Gareth Wild, and it was not regular treatment. With treatment, she realized she was not a bad person. She has never needed antidepressants.
1.   History of the motor accident
Ms Eskander had an accident on 23 December 2020 and said she was driving with her daughter, 8 years old at that time, and driving back from the city after Christmas shopping. Suddenly there was a massive bang and she was thrown back and forwards, and realized an accident had happened. Her tyres popped and her car was not drivable after the accident.
She said the other car drove off, it was a hit and run. She checked her daughter and she was ok. She recalled they were near Kensington, and other cars flew up and were driving fast, and worried she would be hit again and they would die. The airbags in her car did not deploy. She said not even a car wanted to stop to help a mother and daughter. Later, a man on a bicycle came and helped to move her car to the side, but the risk of being hit again was still there.
Ms Eskander recalled she cried and called the police, but 2 hours later, they still did not come. She called again and they said they forgot them, and they were busy as the same driver in the accident hit other people after her. Subsequently, a friend took her later to the police to give her statement. Her car was towed and later repaired.
She first consulted a GP after a few days later, as she had significant pain by then and could not walk or sit properly. Even on the toilet, she recalled she cried as she could not get up, and it was the same with the couch.
Ms Eskander reported having developed physical injuries as a result of the accident, now the pain affects her neck, left shoulder and back. She has intermittent flare-ups. She takes Panadol and Nurofen as needed for pain. She uses a heat pack. There were no surgical treatments after the accident. Cortisone injection was discussed and she declined, and said it was a band-aid solution.
She said she can walk. She said her lifting capacity is perhaps 5kg.
Her daughter was in the front of her car, and is fine now.
2.   History of symptoms and treatment following the motor accident
Ms Eskander felt panicky and depressed. She said her anxiety and depression commenced within a couple of months, perhaps 2 months after the accident, and were getting worse. She kept replaying the accident in her mind and felt worse. She said she thought she could do it without help, and there was a gap before she sought help for her mental health, even though she had consulted a psychologist previously. Eventually, she consulted a female psychologist first (the name could not be recalled), and then Paul Dekkers.
She said since the accident, her mental health declined a lot, with panic attacks, she cried regularly and always thinking something bad would happen, someone would attack her or her children, or they would die. She has sleep problems and even now, she has panic attacks and flashbacks. She said she feels consumed by the accident.
The Panel explored Ms Eskander's flashbacks. She said she is always thinking about the accident, and banging sounds pop into her head, and thinks she is about to die, and no one cares about her as no one stopped to help.
3.   Details of any relevant injuries or conditions sustained since the motor accident

Ms Eskander has not had further car accidents or sustained other psychological injuries.

4. Current symptoms
Since the accident, Ms Eskander's weight fluctuated. She said sometimes she does not eat and loses weight, but sometimes she binge-eats and gains weight. She eats without prompting. Her current weight is 61kg. Before the accident, she was 63kg. She said her psychologist and GP did not say anything about her weight management and her GP weighed her intermittently. She said her highest weight after the accident was 70kg.
Ms Eskander reported the quality of her sleep has been poor as she cannot wind down. She said she is overtired and has bad dreams from time to time, related to the accident. She said she has flashbacks. The other driver was on drugs and she dreamt she was escaping from him, as he was going to stab her.
She reported being easily frustrated and getting angry at times and yells, screams and cries. She said it affected her marital relationship. She said she even cries at work, when having a bad day, because she thinks about how she has been treated and neglected by the insurer. She said she was left to die from day one and no one cares.
The Panel asked about depression, Ms Eskander said she is not happy, and she needs someone to look after her, from her husband and mother. She said her mother cooks, cleans and makes food and forces her to eat. She said she does not want to dress up and wears the same clothes for a couple of days. She said she does not brush her teeth and needs people to tell her do it. Her husband obtained a cleaner. Her sister was helping and moved away now.
5. Current and proposed treatment
In terms of treatment, the last time Ms Eskander consulted a psychologist was in February 2025, when treatment approval was discontinued. She has a mental health care plan and has an appointment soon, under Medicare. She said she felt worse off psychologist treatment since February.
She is taking:
• Fluoxetine, altogether for a couple of years and it was increased to 40 mg, however due to side effects, she reduced it back to 20 mg.
• Panadol and Nurofen as needed for pain
• Nexium sometimes. She said with anxiety, she has reflux symptoms.

Clinical Examination

6. Mental State examination
Ms Eskander was assessed by video. She was alone, and her husband was also at home during the assessment. I assessed her from my Sydney office. I have completed a full psychiatric assessment with consent. I have taken handwritten notes, and there was no audio-visual recording of the assessment.
Ms Eskander was neatly attired and had long combed hair. She engaged well with the assessment process. There was no psychomotor slowing or abnormal movements. She was mildly restricted in her affect range and reactivity. She smiled and laughed briefly. She spoke spontaneously and fluently. She described her energy and motivation as low. She described low self-esteem and low levels of confidence. She described repeated memories of the events from the accident with flashbacks and nightmares. She denied having any active or passive suicidal thoughts, intents or plans and there were no thoughts of harming others. She did not describe any grandiosity, racing thoughts or increased energy levels. There was no evidence of formal thought disorder, no delusional pattern of thinking and no perceptual abnormalities. She was attentive and gave a clear history. She remained focused throughout the assessment.
The assessment took 65 minutes.
7. Current functioning
Ms Eskander is 47 years old and living with her husband, who is a chartered accountant, and they have four children aged 12, 16, 21, and 23.
Ms Eskander said she hates driving since the accident, but she has no choice and has to drive to work at 4 am. She is anxious on the road and constantly looks over her shoulder, and worries something bad would happen, she has palpitations. She drives in the local area and the longest she can drive on her own is 30 minutes to work. On M5 motorway, or over a potential hole, she has severe anxieties. Before the accident, she enjoyed driving.
Ms Eskander said she feels like she is living but not for a purpose. A few months ago, she took extra Fluoxetine and her son caught her, because she wanted to be knocked out and sedated, as she cannot feel calm. She said she does not want to die but did not want to feel. She said nothing makes her happy now.
She said her two older children do not understand her, sometimes they do not talk and said she is “useless mother”.
Ms Eskander said she does not socialize and has no interest. She tried to socialize once with her husband and they turned back after 30 minutes. She rarely talks to her friends and 3 months ago, a friend lost her stepson, but she did not go see her. She lost contact with her cousins.
She said she spends time working, after work, she sits and relaxes at home. She checks Instagram, and looks at people with PTSD online and self-help sites.
In terms of usual recreational activities, Ms Eskander likes long drives, and belly dancing, baking, and going to the beach. She does not belly dance as she does not feel like it, or go to the beach. She said she has not baked after the accident.
She used to go overseas twice a year but not since the accident. In terms of actual trips away, she said the last time was in 2018.
Ms Eskander would drive to Wagga Wagga to visit her mother-in-law monthly, but not since the accident. She said she is not independent since the accident. It took 4.5 hours, but she cannot drive to Wagga Wagga, and worries about car accidents. She said driving locally, it is fine, if something happened, her husband can come to help her on the road.
She goes to the Church every 2 weeks. She has been married around 25 years, and said the marital relationship is supportive, but they fight sometimes, because he is trying to get used to who she has become now and her incapacity to do things. She reported she has not been intimate as much as she likes since the accident.

In terms of domestic duties, Ms Eskander stated that she does not do much. She loads the clothes dryer. If her mother does not cook, she buys takeaway food, e.g. Italian and Chinese, a couple of times a week. Her husband buys groceries online.
Ms Eskander said her mother calls her daily to prompt her, and asked "have you had a shower today". She said her husband said the same things. Without prompting, she said she only showers once a week. She said her workplace is fine with her hygiene, and has not raised concerns about her hygiene. She said she has not coloured her hair around 2 years. The Panel noted to her, her presentation was good today, and she said when she goes to work, she ties her hair back, applies lipstick and presents well as it is required for customer service, and her supervisor has not raised concerns regarding her work or performance, her attire or uniform.
In terms of employment history, before the accident, Ms Eskander worked 50-55 hours per week, now only 15-18 hours per week. She had 3 jobs and now, only one job, with Menzies aviation. She said the insurer claimed she was on light duties immediately before the subject accident, and that was not true, she only had light duties for 3 months.
Ms Eskander had worked at a law firm 10-15 hours a week as the office manager, and said that she would speak to clients and type up the affidavit. But by March 2021 she had to quit. It was too hard to focus and explained that she would need to be seated in front of a client and type up the affidavit over a couple of hours, and she could not focus for that long.
Her second job was for the family business, preparing tax returns and data entry work. Again this could take a couple of hours, but about five months after the accident she could not cope anymore, because she could not concentrate for a couple of hours.
Ms Eskander reported that she had been working at Menzies Aviation for several years and worked at the airport. They only manage one airline, the United Airline. She was doing 30 hours per week before the accident and said overall it is an easier job. She drives half an hour to the airport and she is part of the ground crew. Ms Eskander would help with check-in, scan the boarding pass, and serve at the counter. 50% is customer service work. She also spends 50% of her time in the office doing computer-based work but there is a lot of free time as well. Ms Eskander said that she would check the passenger manifest to see how many passengers there are, and order enough meals for the flight. Ms Eskander said she has been maintaining three days a week, but she would take extra time off from her annual leave to help her recover, and she has been managing the job. She works 4-5 hours a day, 3-4 days a week now.
Ms Eskander said she was almost fired initially after the accident, as she only worked 2 days per week, and she pushed herself and maintained 3-4 days per week now. She said she could have stayed home but did not. She used up her annual leave, as she would take 1 week off work every couple of months. She has not had a promotion or demotion since the accident.
8. Comments of consistency

The Panel discussed her past psychiatric history and the inconsistencies raised by the insurer with her.

Review of Documentation

9.   Summary of relevant documentation
VCC functional capacity assessment, 2111/24, noted was independent in self care, but has no interest to do anything. When she showers, her husband sits her on toilet seat due to her anxiety and dizziness. He helps scrubbing her legs. She can dress herself. Previously Ms Eskander enjoyed long drives, visit mother in-law in Wagga monthly, cook for everyone, and long walks. She was on Fluoxetine 20 mg now. She lies down 12 hours a day. The assessor said there were no dysfunction as a result of the subject accident. The assessment history focussed on the management of Ms Eskander's physical injuries.
Personal Injury Commission certificate by psychiatrist Medical Assessor Dr Atsumi Fukui 13/11/23, she diagnosed PTSD with 15% WPI. Ms Eskander only worked at Menzies Aviation 18 hours per week now. Her sister and mother help with cooking and cleaning. She skips meals then binge-eats. She normal cooks. Self-care declined and does not shower regularly, showers twice a week. She said Ms Eskander has no past psychiatric history but had seen a psychologist for personal reason. Dr Atsumi Fukui provided a PIRS with ratings 332 223, with no further modification to WPI.
Application for personal injury benefits form noted the circumstances of the accident at 60 kph, rear-ended on right with force. Car was towed. Pre-existing factor section indicated there were no relevant pre-existing factors.
Allied health recovery request form 1 16/4/21, PTSD from the subject accident, pre-existing factor “unremarkable”. PCL-5 score out of 80 was 48. Written by Yulia Vystavkina, psychologist at Insightful Minds.
Physiotherapist clinical file has been noted, and file from Dr Lieu, pain specialist.
Dr Morgan Mo GP 29/6/22, noted the subject accident, Ms Eskander has pre-existing anxiety and depression. In terms of activities of daily living, issue with self-care and personal hygiene, pain affect domestic duties. Has a cleaner. Issues with driving. Continued working with Adjustment disorder, but distressed from coping chronic pain symptoms.
AHRR form 5, with similar psychological symptoms. Irritability, concentration difficulties, ruminative thoughts, unwanted memory related to the accident, avoids reminders of the accident and negative thinking. Pre-existing factor section was left unfilled. Written by Paul Dekkers, psychologist 7/9/22.
Psychologist letter written by Carl Nielsen. to the GP 28 July 2023, PCL-5 score out of 80 was 58, and the psychologist diagnosed PTSD according to DSM-5TR criteria. Ms Eskander no longer drives to see mother in-law, has no interest to go to the beach, relies on mother and children for domestic duties and gets takeaway food. Relationship problems as no longer, goes to dinner with friends or colleagues. Ms Eskander changed job from law firm to accounting firm doing administration, but not unable to perform her work, and reduced from 55 to 20 hours per week only.
Dr Richa Rastogi IME psychiatrist's report dated 22/8/22, Ms Eskander had previous psychologist for personal issues 5 years ago and her symptoms resolved. She noted Ms Eskander only worked 14 hours per week now. Ms Eskander needs prompting to shower. No longer cooks. She drives to the airport but has flashbacks and avoids long-distance driving. She lost friends and struggles with household chores. Mother comes 3-4 times per week to help with household chores. Intimacy issues with husband, problems with children. Forgetful, irritable, her job is at risk. On Sertraline 100 mg. She has been married 21 years. She diagnosed Post-traumatic stress disorder and provided a PIRS with ratings 2,3,2,2,3,3, total WPI 17%. She explained the PIRS ratings based the following impairment and activities: her mother prompts her daily with self-care, dressing and meals, she does not get too involved in social activities, stopped social outings. At risk of warning at work, managing 2 days at work.
Dr Ashwinder Anand IME psychiatrist provided a report dated 5/9/22, there was no mention whether Ms Eskander had a past psychiatric history or not. Ms Eskander gets the children ready in the morning for school and does the school drop-off. She watches TV and pushed herself to do household chores, make sandwich, get lunch order ready, put washing in dryer, symptoms she is able to make a meal. Drives independently, only attended a funeral and no other social activities. She manages her finance with online banking. He diagnosed Post-traumatic stress disorder and Major depressive disorder. He provided a PIRS with ratings 232233, 15% without pre-accident PIRS. The PIRS rating explanation noted that Ms Eskander is independent in self care. Relationship with her husband straining due to constant fighting. Poor concentration, left 2 jobs. She can work 30 hours per week.
Certificates of capacity Adjustment disorder from the subject accident, pre-existing factor anxiety and depression. certified as having work capacity 6 hours a day 4 days per week. June 2021, Dr Sebastian Calvache-Rubio.
Other Certificates of capacity with similar history, similar pre-existing history, by Dr Morgan Mo.
Dr Gareth Wild, Psychologist letter to the GP 15/11/17, first side effects 14/6/16, anxiety and depression, DASS showed extreme depression, severe anxiety and moderate stress. Cognitive behavioural therapy.
The insurer submitted Ms Eskander did not seek help for her psychological health for a long time after the accident and this is not consistent with a psychological injury from the subject accident.
The applicant's submission said the insurer contradicted itself by asking for pre-accident records but also said her records showed a past psychiatric history 14 month before the accident and took issue with the MA’s recorded history that Ms Eskander did not have a past psychiatric history. The claimant said:
Despite the insurer conceding that the Assessor was indeed aware of the claimant's past psychological treatment and medical history from 2014-2017, the insurer takes specific issue with the Assessor's statement that "Ms Eskander did not have a prior psychiatric history. She developed significant psychological symptoms which are related to the subject motor accident, and it is my opinion that her psychological condition is causally related to the subject motor accident". To that end, the insurer argues that because there was an isolated comment in the GP records of anxiety on 12 October 2019 (over a year prior to the accident), the Assessor was obliged to provide "specific comment on that relevant material". The claimant emphatically disputes the relevance of the isolated psychological complaint that was taken over a year prior to the accident. For the avoidance of any doubt, the claimant highlights that this was the only psychological complaint in the GP records in the 43 months leading up to the subject accident. In the claimant's submission, it was completely open and clinically justified for the Assessor to deny the existence of a prior psychiatric condition on the face of the available evidence.
Marketplace Mediclinic GP's treatment records:
·    2014, 1-2 days per month alcohol.
·    30/3/16, Dr Ford, stopped talking to mother, counselling, strict Christian upbringing, regrets.
·    4/5/16, referred to psychologist.
·    Several similar psychological entries.
·    17/5/17, Dr Jamil. Depression, ongoing issue, son Autism (Comment: she said it was wrong, he does not have Autism spectrum disorder), no interest socializing, social withdrawal from family and friends, no suicidal ideation reported lack interest in enjoyable activities, tearful, low moods, irritability, no substance. Sleep problems, concentration difficulties. Supportive family. Referred to psychologist.
·    29/12/17, back pain from work.
·    28/6/19, tiredness and weight gain. Later said sonographer was stupid.
·    1210/19, stress, anxiety, ongoing issues but having flare-up, low moods, poor socializing with others, no interest in life, or going outside, or sports, sleep problems, no suicidal ideation reported, no triggers for depression, home situation good, does not want long-term medication or antidepressant. Diazepam. Comment: she said she did not take Diazepam, and was fine after that.
·    6/11/19, unresolved tiredness, well, stable.
·    No anxiety.
·    30/9/20, still pain, antalgic gait. Hip X-ray.
·    16/9/20 chronic hip pain. Anxious regarding possible causes. Long-term headaches noted around that time.
·    22/11/20, asked for backdated medical certificate, GP could not do it. Migraine. Around that time cerebral MRI scan, migraine, back pain.
·    18/2/21, MVA in December 2020, back pain worse recently. Low iron and tired around that time.
·    Many entries after the accident, there was no psychological history recorded.
·    21/1/22, 62kg.
Comment:
Several General practitioners noted pre-existing factor “anxiety and depression”, but the treating psychologist and some IME psychiatrist, recorded no history or no did not mention a past psychiatric history.

Determinations

10.Diagnosis and reasons
In summary, Ms Eskander has a history of depression and anxiety symptoms and has had psychological treatment previously. The last episode was possibly 18 months before the accident. Her GP did notice some anxiety relating to chronic hip pain and chronic headache maybe three months before the accident, but there was no evidence of pre-accident psychiatric impairment.
She reported that after a relatively minor accident, she suffered persistent fear and anxiety. This is understandable in a highly vulnerable individual with a previous anxiety disorder, and she described symptoms consistent with Post-traumatic stress disorder. There have been no other stresses and her psychiatric injury has not resolved. The Panel concluded there is more than a negligible contribution from the subject accident to Ms Eskander's current psychological injury.
Ms Eskander's psychological symptoms have fulfilled all of the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for PTSD. The subject incident is consistent with a criterion A stressor, as she thought she would be struck by fast cars all around her immediately after the collision. She has developed flashbacks and nightmares, persistent avoidance of situations and anxiety when exposed to reminders of the subject accident, and persistent negative cognitions and low moods, and she described fear and detachment. She has physiological hyper-arousal with disturbed sleep, concentration, and general over-reactiveness. Her symptoms have persisted longer than 4 weeks and are associated with functional impairment. Finally, the Panel has not identified another medical or psychiatric condition that better explains her trauma symptoms.
Ms Eskander continues to suffer from chronic pain which compounds her chronic depression and anxiety symptoms. Her condition is stabilised now.
In terms of the WPI assessment, Medical assessor Dr Atsumi Fukui rated 3 in self-care, while Dr Ashwinder Anand and Dr Richa Rastogi rated 2. During the assessment, Ms Eskander asserted that she needs constant assistance, otherwise she could not maintain basic nutrition and hygiene. Ms Eskander talks about times when she binge-eats and eats too much, times when she does not eat. She orders takeaway food because she said she cannot cook. Since the accident, Ms Eskander said she only showers once a week and wears the same work uniform. On the other hand, being in a customer service role, there have been no concerns raised regarding her hygiene, self-care, her eating or how clean her uniforms are at work, and she works 3-4 days a week. Overall, the Panel concluded her impairment is consistent with a 2, and she does not need prompting, simply because she said so. The medical evidence is that she can maintain basic nutrition and hygiene without prompting as she is independent.
In terms of Concentration, persistence and pace, Dr Fukui rated 2 while the two IMEs rated 3. However, Dr Rastogi and Dr Anand did not discuss whether she could focus on intellectually demanding tasks for half an hour or not. The Panel noted that Ms Eskander could not perform her two jobs because she could not focus for hours, but she could maintain the aviation work because she could focus on less demanding tasks and spends half the time in the office, with significant computer-based work. Ms Eskander clearly does perform work that requires focus for at least half an hour. The Panel noted she presented with good concentration for more than an hour during the assessment, and the Panel rated 2.
11.Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale

Current PIRS

PIRS Category	Class	Reason for Decision
Self-care and personal hygiene	2	Ms Eskander's self-care has deteriorated and she binge-eats at times, and skips meals at times. Her weight fluctuated and her current weight is not that different from before the accident. She orders takeaway food when her mother does not cook, and showers once a week without prompting, and reported no concerns have been raised by her employer in her customer service officer, as the first contact passengers using United Airline. She is capable of independent living without regular support and does not need prompting with self-care.
		Social and recreational activities	3	She has rare social activities with her family due to anxiety problems.
Travel	2			Ms Eskander has anxiety and can only drive locally, and not to Wagga Wagga or for a few hours as she did before the accident.
		Social functioning	2	Ms Eskander's relationship with her husband and children has deteriorated without separation or domestic violence. She has been isolative and does not have contact with her friends. The relationship with her broader family is reasonable.
Concentration, persistence and pace	2			Ms Eskander reported having concentration difficulties. She has undertaken intellectually demanding tasks for a significant period of time, doing computer work, up to 30 minutes. Her mental state examination is consistent with class 2 (mild impairment) during the assessment.
		Adaptation	3	Ms Eskander lost 2 jobs due to her concentration difficulties as she could not concentrate for hours after the accident. She continues to perform the same pre-injury duties in her third job, but less than 20 hours per week.
List classes in ascending order: 222 233
Median Class Value: 2
Aggregate Score: 14
% Whole Person Impairment: 7

*%WPI ^{= Percentage Whole Person Impairment}
12.   Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale
Pre-existing/subsequent impairment
Ms Eskander has not sustained a subsequent injury.
Accepting Ms Eskander's claim she was completely well before the accident, then there were no pre-accident impairment.
13.   Apportionment
Pre-existing impairment = 0%
14.   Effects of Treatment
1%
There has been symptomatic relief and mild improvement with treatment.
Conclusion
Degree of permanent impairment caused by the motor accident
8 %

The Panel adopts the report of Medical Assessor Hong and Medical Assessor Singh.

Causation/Reasons

The Panel must consider whether the claimant’s diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was caused because of the accident. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 23 December 2020. The accident was sudden and unexpected and the driver responsible for the accident failed to stop. The claimant’s car was not driveable after the accident and had to be towed away and repaired.
After the accident the claimant’s car was stationary. She feared that passing traffic might collide again with her and cause physical injury.
The claimant says that as a result of the accident she has suffered physical injuries to her cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine and also to her left and right shoulders. Medical Assessor Home assessed that the claimant had suffered a threshold injury only. Medical Assessor Shahzad assessed WPI at 2% representing a 1% assessment of WPI for each shoulder. A review panel subsequently assessed the claimant’s physical injuries as having 0% WPI.
The insurer submits that the claimant has chronic pain symptoms requiring continued treatment, and psychological restrictions. Based on the findings of both Medical Assessor Shahzad and the Review Panel who considered the findings of Medical Assessor Shahzad, and who assessed physical WPI at 2% and 0% respectively, this Panel does not conclude that the claimant’s physical injuries were of such an extent as to impact on her psychiatric condition.
The Panel concludes that the accident has had a more than negligible effect on the psychiatric disability subsequently suffered by the claimant. The claimant did have some psychiatric complaints prior to the accident and not within any reasonable proximity of the accident. The claimant informed the Medical Assessors that when she sought medical assistance three months before the accident, it was not because of anxiety but because of chronic hip pain and she worried about this as she thought it might be cancer. There was no further treatment thereafter and the Panel does not consider this to be a disability of a greater consequence than the disability which independently arose after the accident. Essentially, the claimant was not in receipt of psychiatric treatment immediately before the accident.

Conclusion

The Panel is satisfied that as a result of the accident on 23 December 2020, the claimant suffered psychiatric injuries.
The Panel is not satisfied that the psychiatric disability suffered by the accident is as a result of any pain she suffered post accident and is satisfied that her psychiatric disability is independent of this. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the claimant’s physical disabilities have been assessed as 0% by a Review Panel on 12 September 2024.
The Panel has diagnosed the claimant as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Panel assesses the claimant as having 8% WPI.

Determination

The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Fukui dated13 November 2023.
The Panel diagnoses the claimant as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident on 23 December 2020.
The Panel assesses WPI at 8%.

[2025] NSWPICMP 417

13 June 2025