Christoforidis v AAI Limited t/as GIO
[2025] NSWPICMP 845
•3 November 2025
| DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL | |
CITATION: | Christoforidis v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMP 845 |
CLAIMANT: | Albertina Christoforidis |
INSURER: | AAI Limited t/as GIO |
REVIEW PANEL | |
MEMBER: | Hugh Macken |
MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Ankur Gupta |
MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Matthew Jones |
DATE OF DECISION: | 3 November 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Personal Injury Commission Act 2020; review of medical assessment; chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in partial remission; prior and current relationship deterioration; prior medication prescription; requirement for airlift to hospital; post-accident physical difficulty; effects of treatment; inconsistencies between recollection and medical record; likely diagnosis of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, impartial remission; psychiatric impairment rating; pre-accident use of antidepressants; Held – Review Panel assessed 8% whole person impairment (WPI). |
DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION 1. The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Alexey Sidorov dated 2. The following injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident and give rise to a permanent impairment of 8%. · chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in partial remission. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
Albertina Christoforidis (the claimant) a 68-year-old woman who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 10 April 2013. There has been a protracted history in respect to medical assessments addressing the issue of the degree of whole person impairment suffered by the claimant and caused by the motor vehicle accident. The insurer has not conceded the claimant’s injuries exceed 10% whole person impairment. This process culminated in the claimant being examined by Medical Assessor Alex Sidorov who examined the claimant on 27 August 2024 and a certificate dated 10 September 2024 determined that the claimant suffered psychological injuries which gave rise to a permanent impairment of 6%.
The claimant sought a review of this certificate and in a decision dated 19 November 2024 President’s delegate Stephanie Wigan decided that there is a reasonable court suspect that the medical assessment was incorrect in a material respect the matter which then referred to this Medical Review Panel.
The Panel convened on 22 July 2024 and noted that there was an absence of treating and clinical material relating to the claimant since 2018. The Panel determined that it was appropriate for the Panel to direct the claimant to obtain updated treating notes from the claimant’s treating general practitioner (GP) and upload this material. This material has now been uploaded to the portal and considered by the Panel.
Clause 14F of Schedule 1 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) provides that the new review provisions apply in relation to a decision of a new decision-maker. A “new decision maker” is defined in cl 14A (1) of the Schedule 1 of the PIC Act. As the medical assessment, the subject of the review, was made on or after 1 March 2021, the new review provisions apply.
The new review provision provides that a Review Panel consists of two Medical Assessors and a Member assigned by the Motor Accidents Division of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission).
Part 5 of the PIC Act enables the Commission to make rules with respect to its practice and procedure including proceedings before a Panel reviewing a decision of a Medical Assessor.
Rules 127 to 130 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) are made pursuant to Part 5 of the PIC Act. A Review Panel determines how it conducts and determines the proceedings and may determine the matter solely based on the written application.
The review of the medical assessment is by way of a new assessment of all the matters with which the medical assessment is concerned.
EXAMINATION
The Panel examination took place on 7 October 2025 via audio-visual link through the
MS Teams platform. Present were Medical Assessors Ankur Gupta and Matthew Jones, both psychiatrists. The claimant was situated in her solicitor’s office in Elizabeth Street, Sydney and Medical Assessors Gupta and Jones were in their respective rooms.
CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY
The claimant was provided the routine cautions with respect to the purpose of the assessment, the non-confidential nature of the assessment, and the fact that the Medical Assessors could not provide treatment advice. She indicated she understood these cautions and proceeded with the assessment voluntarily.
INTRODUCTION
The claimant is a 68-year-old woman who normally lives in Penrith in her marital home, where she has lived for over 50 years. She lives there with her husband, Phillip, who is retired, but she said has a habit of helping other people. She reported that he is very handy and was previously a diesel mechanic, worked in refrigeration, and also has worked on fishing trawlers.
The claimant is not currently working and she receives part of the old age pension through Centrelink. She commented that her husband earns too much for her to receive the full pension. She previously worked as a teacher’s aide, up until 13 years ago. She worked with children with special needs in mainstream schools. She worked in this capacity for 25 to 30 years.
The claimant and her husband have three children: a 45-year-old male who lives in Queensland and has two children, a 41-year-old female who lives in Kellyville and has three children, and a 39-year-old female who lives in Glenmore Park who had three children, however a three year old died about two years ago, after “a hospital mishap.” She had a virus and passed away. She reported that all of her surviving grandchildren are well and range in age from 18 down to five months.
The claimant reported she sees her grandchildren “not that often.” She said she used to see some of her grandchildren more often, however one of her daughters has not been coming over because of having a young baby. She said that she tends to stay at home. The claimant has visited a couple of times, however. She said she does not feel comfortable going there often due to still having emotions related to the death of the other granddaughter. She has some contact with her other children about every two weeks, even if this is by phone.
I asked the claimant about her relationship with her children, and she referred to it being “not very good.” She said that they tend to prefer their father over her and the reason for this, she provided, was that they get help from him. She said the only thing she does for her children is cook special meals if they want it. She said even her grandchildren will tend to go to their grandfather. She said that he spoils them by buying them things and taking them to them. The claimant reported she does not get asked to do such things with her grandchildren and she said it is, “like [she] is invisible.” She alluded to a challenging marriage in that she has been, “told all the time [she is] always wrong”, by her husband, Phillip.
The claimant reported she married her husband in 1979 and therefore has been married for 46 years or so. She described she and her husband as having “no relationship.” They sleep in separate rooms and her husband does not talk to her. She said that if he does talk to her he asks her why she has not done this thing, or that thing, or vacuumed, for example. She said that she cooked him dinner the night before the assessment, however he had already eaten. She described herself as “lucky to get a lift to the station.” She went on to say that he lives a separate life and as far as she is aware he has no other romantic relationships.
The Panel asked the claimant why she was still married given the way she spoke of the quality of the marriage, and she said that she has a roof over her head and then asked “where [is she] going to go”. She reported that she has “nothing to back [her] up.” She said that she would like to leave but she does not know how to go about it. She said several times that she has thought about packing her bags and taking off.
The Panel asked the claimant when the difficulties in the marriage started and she responded, “Just after the accident.” She said this was due to her not being able to be in a car with him because she would have panic attacks. She said this is especially when the car she is in is next to a truck. She said her husband has great pleasure sitting beside trucks just to see her have an anxious response. When the Panel questioned this, as it indicated, more so, something about her husband’s personality or the state of the relationship, she said, “It just happened overnight” and “it was fine before.” She said that they “used to go out and everything”, however “now there is nothing.” The Panel asked what changed and she said that her husband keeps telling her that the accident was her fault even though she was not driving. He tells her it is her fault for how things are. She reiterated that, “He wasn’t like that before.” She said she did not understand the whole situation.
The claimant spontaneously added early in the assessment that she “see[s] the accident” and has “flashbacks of the accident.” The Panel decided to follow this line of enquiry and asked her what she meant by flashbacks and she said that even the night before the assessment when there was a low flying helicopter she had a panic attack. She said she gets hot and sweaty and was unable to cope. She said it “freaks [her] out.” She referred to it being similar to the MASH television program when helicopters would come in low. On further enquiry about the nature of her flashbacks, she said they are of “having the truck beside.” She said she sees it from her own point of view. She reported she has these flashbacks every couple of weeks and it occurs when she lies down at nighttime. She also said it happens when she is driving, for example, if she is driving and a truck is next to her, she needs to get away quickly.
TREATMENT
The claimant was somewhat unsure of the medication she was taking but said she takes six tablets in the morning and five tablets at night. She believes she takes two medications for diabetes, one for cholesterol and she cannot remember the other ones apart from a tablet for depression which the Panel confirmed was Venlafaxine 150mg. As an aside, the claimant reported that her “doctor went on holidays.” She said she has no current clinical contact with anyone.
The Panel asked if the claimant had seen any psychologists since the accident and she said that she did in the early stages, about twice a week and then every week. She said this was a female and the Panel confirmed that it was a Ms Sweeney.
The Panel asked about having seen any psychiatrists and she reported that her doctor sent her to one psychiatrist, however she did not go back. She said the psychiatrist contacted the doctor and then the claimant was not contacted again. She said this psychiatrist was in North Richmond and she saw her soon after the accident.
PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY
The claimant reported that she had previously taken no psychiatric medications. She said she had had one or two visits of counselling due to “things that happened at school.” On further enquiry she reported that there was another teacher’s aide who was picking on her. She went to see the counsellor because she wanted to make sure that what she was doing about the situation was correct.
The claimant denied any psychiatric admissions, taking psychiatric medications before, or any experience of mental health problems, including any postnatal depression, panic, anxiety or depression. She reiterated, “No, no.” She denied any family history of mental health problems.
HISTORY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT
The date of the accident was 9 April 2013, over 12 years prior to the current assessment. The claimant reported that she and her husband were on the New England Highway, driving behind a truck and the truck driver put on its brakes. Phillip put on the brakes in their vehicle. She said then Phillip went to overtake the truck, was overtaking it at high speed, got up to the cabin of the truck and then the truck driver veered the truck to the right and clipped the back of their vehicle. Their vehicle went in front of the truck, then careered over an embankment and rolled a few times. She said the truck driver “took off” and when police finally caught up with him he told the police that he “thought they were dead.”
At the time of the accident, the claimant stayed in the car and said that she had a head injury. She said the ambulance arrived and she was airlifted to John Hunter Hospital and was there for a few days. She said that they were in a panel van and it was just her and her husband in the vehicle. She said what she thinks saved them was that the panel van was loaded down with tools. She said the morning after the accident her son attended the accident scene and picked up what he could find. She said that in the commotion she had been speared by a wooden post. She said her main physical injuries were to her head.
The Panel asked about any legal or court consequences from the accident and she said all she knows is that the truck driver lost his job. She said her husband also incurred injuries on the side of his body when the car rolled from side-to-side.
The claimant reported that, at first, she thought she had had no loss of consciousness but when she looks back she thinks she did. She remembers during the time of the accident she had this desire to kill the truck driver. She said she was very angry and was asking herself why it happened. She said she was later told by police that the truck driver was on drugs and “had his uppers.”
HISTORY OF SYMPTOMS AND TREATMENT FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT
The claimant reported she had head trauma and was cut on her head. She also reported she has problems with her right side and she is in constant pain and there are a lot of things that she is unable to lift. She reported she struggles doing normal chores and, instead of half an hour, a task will take her a day. She reported she cannot do what she used to do, for example she previously would go ballroom dancing. She referred to herself as being very unsteady on her feet. She said she used to be on the road a fair bit travelling and she would do things with her grandchildren. She said she used to do a lot of sewing, knitting and “heavy gardening.” She said it takes her weeks to do gardening now. She reported she used to enjoy going out to the shops and “doing different things.” She explained this as that she used to like to look at the shops and browse. She said it has been so long since she has gone to the shops like that, she “can’t remember.”
The claimant reported she also liked “catching up with people”, however she said she does not drive much now, but said she would “love to.” When asked why she does not drive much she said she is “a bit cautious of being in a car.” She said she does not want to have another accident and she gets nervous when trucks are around. She said however she needs to drive at times and said that she will “close [her] eyes most of the time”, presumably when she is a passenger.
The Panel asked the claimant where she does drive, and she said she will drive to the shops every week, do her “local groceries” and then come home. When asked when she last drove to Queensland she said she could not remember, but estimated it was about five years ago.
The Panel confirmed that the claimant had a driver’s licence and she said she had just renewed it. She reported she has her own car, however Phillip drives it all the time, despite having his own car. She said this was another way of keeping her home so that she does not go anywhere. She described him as “a control freak.” She said he “did not like [her] going out.” When asked why the claimant thought her husband was “a control freak” she questioned whether it was his upbringing or his Mediterranean Green upbringing. She said she thinks he has a belief that women should be kept in the kitchen, like his mother. The Panel noted that this was somewhat constitutional with respect to her husband and pointed this out to the claimant who then said that she noticed that it “got stronger after the accident.” She offered as an explanation that he may have “hit his head or whatever.” She went on to describe some of his behaviours, for example if she has been out, he asks where she has been, how long she has been there and then asks why she has to have a cup of tea. She then added that he does not really talk to her much at all.
The Panel asked the claimant about any friendships, and she said that she had a lot of friends “but they have gone”. She said she has not caught up with them and she does not go and see them. She does go down the road and talk to one of her neighbours and they “discuss stuff.”
The Panel asked why it was that the claimant could not go dancing, within her physical capacity, and she said she “just couldn’t do it.” She said she is scared of falling. She reported she has had a couple of falls, the cause of which she said was unknown. She said it is like someone is behind her and pushes her. She is standing up one minute and then down the next and likened it to being “a puff of wind or something.” She reported she had some significant falls, including one which resulted in her ending up in hospital, and another one where she was sitting down and fell backwards. She was in her rose garden at the time. She said when she has the experience of “a pretend wind blowing”, she feels the need to hold something. The Panel confirmed that she does not drink alcohol or take any recreational drugs. She commented that she only has “tea or water.” She reported that she can be unsteady on her feet at any time and it limits her dancing abilities and interferes with her gardening. She said she used to go horse riding and wants “to get back on a horse”, however her daughter (who has horses) will not let her.
The claimant reported she is not sure why her arm is not working well. She said that she has pain from the wound on her head, down her neck, through her shoulder and down her arm. She said nighttime is the worst and she finds there are times when she cannot sleep, for example the night before the assessment. She will go to pick up something but has no strength. She said she cannot open a bottle and needs help with this. Indicating her frustration, she said “you come and spend a day in my body.”
The Panel asked the claimant if she was still experiencing nightmares and she said she is however they are not as often as before and perhaps occur once every two months.
CURRENT FUNCTIONING
The claimant reported that her injuries do not interfere with her ability to shower and dress, however there is some problem with going to the toilet because of limitations with reaching. Domestically, she will cook, vacuum and mop, but said she gets into trouble from Phillip if the quality or frequency of cleaning is not sufficient. She said she is unable to cook a lot of the meals that she previously did as she cannot undertake the stirring motion needed. She struggles with lifting pots and struggles with cleaning the bathroom.
The Panel asked the claimant how she passes time during the day, and she said she does “not a lot.” She will lie down just to rest her body and said that her head makes her feel tired. She reported she does not watch television during the day. She no longer sleeps in the daytime but for a period was sleeping up to two hours a day, a few years ago. She said she just does not need to anymore. She reported she will often toss and turn at night and will watch the sunrise then get-up at 9.00am or 8.00am and “that’s it.” She will walk around the yard, talk to the birds and feed the birds. She said her grandson has two parrots.
The Panel asked what the claimant does when she lies down, and she said she used to try and read a book, however she has had one book going for the last three years. She said she is three-quarters of the way through. She reads for a while and then cannot do anymore. She said that reading drains her and her head hurts. She does do word finding puzzles from the newspaper. She gets stressed about reading and is not sure why or what she gets stressed about. Spontaneously, she said she “can’t follow patterns.” She said she wants to knit and was previously a knitter but needs a pattern to knit and cannot do this spontaneously. She said she wants to read recipes because she wants to make things. She previously would knit things for her grandchildren but has not knitted since the accident.
The Panel asked, given she was a teacher’s aide for 25 to 30 years, whether she had tried any of this employment since the accident and she said that she had a friend who asked her to, however after the accident she could not. This was not long after the accident. She then said she has not made any efforts since then. She reported that she has been out of the industry for so long and “everything’s changed.” She said that if the curricula had not changed, “Yes, [she] would be working.” She wants to work and has thought about other jobs but cannot think what she would do. She said however that she is limited by her tiredness, her sore arm and her head.
The claimant repeated that she has not considered work since the accident and the main reason for this was “the pain.” She said she would have problems walking around a high school. She also said that some of the children she looked after were violent and she would need to restrain them. She said that her not working is related to her physical impairment and if she were physically capable, she would be working.
The claimant still cooks and likes to cook Greek food. She said some recipes she has to look up and some she can remember. She reported she can follow recipes but it takes her a while, but she gets there in the end.
TREATMENT
When asked what treatment she thought she still required, the claimant reported she “had quite a bit.” She said she cannot think of anything she needs at the moment. She said she currently uses a lot of heat packs and has been on tablets for pain and other problems including Lyrica in the past. She said she has not seen any pain specialists, nor has she had any operations on her injuries.
The claimant reported her frustration about the CTP process taking so long. The Panel commented that she has been previously assessed on a number of occasions including by a Panel, and she was still unable to provide reasons why the case was still going. She said she wants to get it over and done with and she is tired of it. She said she does not know why she is still involved.
INCONSISTENCIES
The Panel attempted to address some of the obvious inconsistencies in the claimant’s reported narrative. The Panel first referred to some notations in her GP record written by
Dr Catherine Bailey. Before the Panel had a chance to talk about what details there were, the claimant stated, “Oh God, yeah.” She went on to say, “She put down the wrong things” and said that Dr Bailey had “done it with other patients.” She said she “doesn’t listen.”
The Panel decided to be more specific for the sake of understanding what the claimant was saying with respect to her pre-accident status and we noted Dr Bailey’s record on
7 January 2013, “Still not great things with the girls. Both are engaged and didn’t tell her about it. Very stressed with her husband who sounds horrible with restricting access to money etc.” The claimant referred to her first statement about Dr Bailey writing down wrong things.
The Panel went on to point out the note on 29 March 2012 where the claimant had been very stressed. There was a K-10 assessment tool done with a score of 42 out of 50 (indicating severe psychological distress). There is a note that a mental health care plan for depression was created and a prescription was written for Venlafaxine 37.5mg to be taken daily. The note included, “Very down – states has had two suicide attempts of late. No one talks to her at home – girls don’t talk to her, her husband does not talk to her.” The claimant, when presented with this information, said that this was “not before the accident” then added that Dr Bailey “wasn’t listening” and reiterated that these problems were only after the accident. She said she had never been prescribed Effexor before the accident. She said she had never overdosed before. When the Panel pointed out that these were unusual things for a GP to either fabricate or make errors about, the claimant was still vague in her acknowledgement of these records and stated that she may have seen a counsellor or taken medications “to do with school”, referring to the problems she was having.
There was no reconciliation between the medical record, just prior to the accident, and the claimant’ report, in fact, she reiterated the assertion that none of this had occurred before the accident.
The claimant confirmed her history with supplementary questions from the second Medical Assessor asking about the quality of her relationships. The claimant reported that previously they were home more together, they were living in the same bedroom, and they had an intimate relationship. She estimated that they separated bedrooms about two years after the accident. She went on to say that she and her husband went on The Ghan and stayed in Darwin with a niece. She said she and her husband underwent “a full experience.” She said she enjoyed the trip, and this was a year and a half before the assessment. She went with Phillip, his brother and her sister-in-law. She said they had meals together on the train and when in Darwin ate together with the niece. She said however in Darwin Phillip met up with a friend and stayed with him and the claimant stayed with people whom she met on the train, just people she met socially.
MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION
The claimant was a Caucasian woman who appeared consistent with her stated age. Her speech was essentially normal in rate, volume and tone and there was no evidence of formal thought disorder or delusional thought processes. She denied any thoughts of self-harm or thoughts of harm to others. She described her mood in dysphoric terms. Her affect (expressed emotion) was quite reactive, congruent and appropriate. She ultimately appeared to the Medical Assessors to be essentially euthymic (of normal mood). She was engaging, freely talking about the difficulties in her marriage and, even with enthusiasm, giving travel suggestions to the Medical Assessors. There was no evidence of perceptual abnormalities consistent with psychosis. Her cognition, insight and judgement appeared intact in the context of the assessment. Rapport was very good, and the claimant spoke openly and freely.
At a little over one hour into the assessment, the claimant reported that she was tired and requested a five-minute break. Ultimately, the assessment lasted about 90 minutes.
CONCLUSION
The Panel noted significantly inconsistencies in the claimant’s reported history. Of most note were her minimising or poor recall of the marital difficulties prior to the accident and what appeared to be a stark denial of details in the medical record, including a history of overdose and problems with the marriage and family stressors. The Panel accepted that with the lengthy passage of time since the accident and multiple assessments and medico-legal circumstance over the last 12 years or more, this would in some way mitigate the vagaries. Taking into account all factors, including the lengthy medical record and previous assessments of the claimant, and her presentation at assessment, the Panel considered that there was likely no active psychiatric diagnosis in the period leading up to the accident, however there had been some emotional symptoms, having been prescribed an antidepressant not long before the accident, having a referral to a psychologist and having had a K-10 self-report score of 42 in the months preceding the accident. Taking all this into account, even if there was a diagnosis, there was likely no whole person impairment.
With respect to since the accident, the claimant likely had a diagnosis of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, in partial remission. This is not controversial and is consistent with having had experienced a severe accident, and multiple previous assessments of the claimant.
With respect to ongoing treatment, the claimant is taking antidepressant medications and not seeing any practitioners. Given the passage of time and her report of her functioning, her condition has stabilised and she is unlikely to change in her level of permanent impairment in the upcoming 12 months.
Her current whole person impairment score is calculated in the table below:
Degree of Permanent Impairment
| Psychiatric diagnoses | 1. Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in partial remission. | 2. |
| 3. | 4. | |
| Psychiatric treatment description | Ongoing antidepressants No ongoing psychological therapy | |
| Category | Class | Reason for Decision |
| 1. Self Care and Personal Hygiene | 1 | Minor deficit attributable to the normal variation in the general population. The claimant reported she is independent with respect to her self-care and personal hygiene. She continues to cook and perform domestic tasks within her physical capabilities. There were no gross signs of neglect observed at assessment. |
| 2. Social and Recreational Activities | 2 | Mild impairment The claimant reported she was able to go on The Ghan with her husband and others one and a half years before the assessment. She was able to socialise whilst on that trip. She reported she will visit a neighbour and chat. She reported she will visit her children or grandchildren on occasion. She reported she would like to go dancing, however she has physical limitations. She reported she is much less active with respect to her solo activities such as gardening. Some of this is due to physical limitations. There appear to be limitations in her social interaction with her husband and her children and grandchildren and that some of these difficulties predated the accident. Taking into account all of the information, and the inherent inconsistencies in The claimant’ reported narrative, the Panel came to the conclusion that there was a class 2, mild impairment in this category. |
| 3. Travel | 2 | Mild impairment The claimant reported she maintains a driver’s licence and is able to drive but tends to only drive locally. She reported the last time she drove to Queensland to visit family was about five years ago. She was able to travel on a tour on The Ghan, in the company of her husband and siblings-in-law. Her reported function is consistent with a class 2, mild impairment. |
| 4. Social Functioning | 2 | Mild impairment There appears to have been pre-existing dysfunction in The claimant’ marriage and relationships with her children and friends (although this was denied by The claimant but clearly recorded in the GP record). The claimant reported that she has drifted from multiple friendships. Although The claimant referred to living a somewhat separate life from her husband, there has not been a formal marital separation. There appear to be elements of domestic violence such as coercive control that appear to have been present prior to the motor vehicle accident. Utilising clinical judgement overall, there is a class 2, mild impairment. |
| 5. Concentration, Persistence and Pace | 3 | Moderate impairment Although The claimant concentrated quite well for the assessment, which had a duration of approximately ninety minutes, she reported she has been struggling to finish a book over the last couple years, and she spontaneously remarked that she is unable to follow knitting patterns. She can follow a recipe, however slower than previously. Although she did not describe a day-to-day lifestyle that had much in the way of cognitive demand, utilising clinical judgement, there is likely a class 3, moderate impairment present. |
| 6. Adaptation | 2 | Mild impairment The claimant reported that she would readily be returning to teacher’s aide work, if she did not have physical limitations and if she had not been out of the workforce for so long (referring to the fact that the various curricula would likely have altered). The Panel concluded that she would likely be able to work in a teacher’s aide position but not more than half her previous functioning (consistent with the PIRS with an assessment of less than twenty hours per week). |
| List classes in ascending order: 1 2 2 2 3 3 | ||
| Median Class Value: 2 | ||
| Aggregate Score: 13 | ||
| % Whole Person Impairment: 7% | ||
*%WPI = Percentage Whole Person Impairment
Apportionment
The claimant reported she is taking an antidepressant medication (this agent was prescribed prior to the motor vehicle accident). The Panel accepted that there were pre-existing emotional symptoms, but they would likely have not satisfied diagnostic criteria for a recognised psychiatric illness under DSM 5. There was therefore no adjustment for
pre-exiting impairment.
Pre-existing/subsequent impairment
Although there has been the passage of over 12 years since the accident, the Panel did not consider there was any subsequent injury or condition that justified any adjustment for subsequent impairment.
Effects of treatment
The Panel noted that the claimant was taking an increased dose of antidepressants currently compared to prior to the motor vehicle accident. It is likely that this is having some treatment effect, although mild given the claimant’s report of ongoing symptoms and minimal change in symptoms or functioning. An overall 1% treatment effect is justified, in the Panel’s opinion.
Conclusion
The Panel assesses the degree of whole person impairment of the claimant at 8%.
0
0
0