Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Odisho
[2025] NSWPICMP 550
•29 July 2025
| DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL | |
CITATION: | Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Odisho [2025] NSWPICMP 550 |
CLAIMANT: | William Odisho |
INSURER: | IAG Limited trading as NRMA Insurance |
REVIEW PANEL | |
MEMBER: | Alexander Bolton |
MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | John Baker |
MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Steven Yeates |
DATE OF DECISION: | 29 July 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) finding a major depressive disorder of moderate degree with anxious distress and whole person impairment (WPI) assessment of 13%; claimant involved in rear end collision; claimant did have a pre-existing psychiatric condition but was not undergoing treatment for this condition for some time before the accident; Held – Review Panel satisfied that the claimant had a major depressive order as a result of the accident and assessed 8% WPI; MAC revoked. |
DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION Determination 1. The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Nagesh of 22 January 2021. 2. The claimant has a major depressive disorder. 3. The Panel assesses the claimant as having a whole person impairment of 8%. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Introduction
This is an application for review by the insurer of a certificate and reasons of Medical Assessor Nagesh (the Medical Assessor) dated 22 January 2021.
The Medical Assessor determined that as a result of a motor vehicle accident on
20 July 2020, the claimant had suffered a DSM-5-TR code F32.1 Major Depressive Disorder of moderate severity with anxious distress which gave rise to a whole person impairment assessment (WPI) of 13%.
The following injuries were referred by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for assessment:
(a) anxiety and depression.
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.
The accident
The accident occurred on 20 July 2020.The claimant was stationary at traffic lights. Without warning, the claimant’s station wagon was hit from behind by a four-wheel drive vehicle. The impact of the collision pushed the claimant’s car forward, but he did not hit any other vehicle. The airbags were not deployed. Police and ambulance apparently attended the scene of the accident; however, the claimant did not attend a public hospital emergency department. The claimant reported that he was able to drive away from the accident scene after exchanging details with the offending driver. Subsequently, it seems, his car was written off for insurance purposes.
Insurer’s submissions
The insurer submits that the Medical Assessor erred in the following which are material to the
outcome of the assessment:
(a) erred in the class rating for social and recreational activities, and concentration, persistence and pace, and
(b) failed to provide sufficient reasoning for his class rating for concentration, persistence and pace.
Error in the class rating for social and recreational activities
Regarding the rating for social and recreational activities, the insurer referred to the Medical Assessor’s assessment concluding that the assessment was for Class 3, with the following reasoning:
“I have assessed him as Class 3 moderate impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho has been attending social events regularly. He states that he attends the social events only because it is part of his custom and he has to. However, he's never been able to attend the social event without his children or his wife. Even if he does attend, he does not. partake in any activities, he sits there in a corner on his own hence class 3 moderate impairment.”
In response to this, the insurer says that during the assessment, the Medical Assessor noted the claimant reported he had been attending an English course two days a week for the past two years. The Medical Assessor also noted the claimant was able to visit a neighbour without a support person as noted in his reasoning for the class rating for Travel.
The insurer submits that the main difference between Class 2 and Class 3 is that the person can go out with or without a support person.
The insurer says that it is evident that the claimant has been able to attend class every week for the past two years and to visit his neighbour on his own, without the need of a support person.
The insurer submits it is more appropriate to assess Social and Recreational Activities as Class 2.
Error in class rating for concentration, persistence and pace and failure to provide sufficient reasoning
Regarding the classification of concentration, persistence and pace, the insurer says that the Medical Assessor assessed Class 3 with the following reasoning:
“I have assessed him as Class 3 moderate impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho is doing a basic course in English. He states that the course is quite basic but even then he has been taking two years and not able to complete it. He states that he's not able to concentrate for more than five to ten minutes. He states that he cannot read newspaper articles, books, or magazines. Struggles to concentrate while watching television or movie shows and he describes his memory as poor. Hence, Class 3 moderate impairment.”
The insurer submits the Medical Assessor’s reasoning for Class 3 is entirely based on the claimant’s subjective reporting and failed to provide his own clinical judgment or information about what he observed at the time of assessment.
Referring to “Mental state examination”, the insurer says the Medical Assessor did not note any issue regarding concentration, persistence and pace.
The insurer referred to cl 6.217 of the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines), it states “The psychiatrist's clinical judgement is the most important tool in the application of the scale.”
The insurer submits the Medical Assessor failed to conduct the assessment in accordance with the Guidelines.
The insurer submits the Medical Assessor has failed to provide sufficient reasoning and erred in class rating for concentration, persistence and pace.
The insurer submits these errors are material to the outcome. The insurer says that if the class rating of social and recreational activities and/or concentration, persistence and pace changes from Class 3 to 2, then the median class becomes 2 and the overall WPI will be under 10%.
In summary, the insurer submits the Medical Assessor has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for his class rating for concentration, persistence and pace and erred in his class rating for social and recreational activities, and concentration, persistence and pace.
Insurer’s submissions for WPI assessment
The insurer noted a history of the claimant of mental health problems with anxiety and depression dating back to at least 2012.
The insurer said that one month prior to the motor vehicle accident, the claimant saw his doctor for anxiety and depression and was noted to be suffering severe stress.
The insurer says that it has not received any requests for treatment from a psychologist/psychiatrist to date in relation to any psychological symptoms but makes no submission regarding this observation.
The insurer submits that there is no evidence that the claimant’s psychological impairment is greater than the threshold.
Claimant’s submissions
The claimant referred to the certificate of the Medical Assessor and his findings where he concluded that the claimant's symptoms were consistent with the diagnosis of a major depressive disorder of moderate degree with anxious distress. The claimant submitted that the Medical Assessor noted, and that it was important to stress, that this diagnosis, and the reported symptoms, were consistent with the claimant's medical records and the contemporaneous records.
The claimant submitted that the Medical Assessor had regard to the previous medical reports by Dr Teoh who also diagnosed the claimant with a DSM-5 diagnosis.
The claimant submits that the Medical Assessor set out the various criteria necessary for the diagnosis of a major depressive disorder, and that all of these were satisfied.
The claimant said that the Medical Assessor found that the claimant's past history of depression and anxiety was relevant, but that depression and anxiety was in remission at the time of the accident.
The claimant has referred to the submission of the insurer that the Medical Assessor erred in the class rating for social and recreational activities. The insurer had noted that the claimant attended a two day English course, and also that he visits his neighbour. The insurer said that the difference between Class 2 and Class 3 is the need of a support person, and because the claimant can do this without a support person, then he should be placed in class 2 and not class 3. The claimant referred to his comment during the assessment that he does require a support person when travelling to social events and this had been addressed by the Medical Assessor. The claimant says that the mere fact that he walks to his next-door neighbour’s house, which is within very close proximity of his house, does not establish that he can attend social events without a support person.
The claimant referred to submission of the insurer that the claimant’s attendance at a course two days a week was indictive of him not needing a support person. The claimant says that the fact that he is undertaking a basic English course, is not evidence of him engaging in social activities.
The claimant submits that it has been established by the Medical Assessor that he was already struggling with the coursework, and the insurer failed to establish how a two day course contributed to him partaking in social and recreational activities.
The claimant submits that he only attends social events because it is part of his custom, and that he is unable to attend social events without his wife or children.
The claimant referred to the issue raised by the insurer that the Medical Assessor erred in the class rating for concentration, persistence and pace, and failed to provide sufficient reasoning. The claimant says that the insurer submitted that the Medical Assessor’s reasoning for class 3 was entirely based on the claimant’s “subjective reporting” and that the Medical Assessor has failed to provide his own clinical judgment or what he observed at the time of the assessment. The claimant refutes this submission.
Medical evidence
The Medical Assessor completed a certificate of 22 January 2021. Inconsistencies were noted at the time of examination where the claimant denied any previous history of mental illness. The Medical Assessor brought to the claimant’s attention previously diagnosed depression and anxiety which was noted in his general practitioner’s (GP) records. The claimant responded that at the time of the accident, he was free of all symptoms and on that day, he was going on a fishing trip with friends.
The claimant’s psychiatric assessment, Medical Assessor Nagesh said;
“He satisfies the criteria under DSM-5 as follows: Mr. Odisho has Criteria A, Mr. Odisho has experienced depressed mood for more than two weeks, Criteria B, in addition, he has experienced five or more of the following symptoms which include insomnia, anxiety, fluctuating appetite, lack of energy, and motivation, diminished ability to concentrate, feelings of worthlessness. Criteria C, these symptoms are not due to a substance misuse or general medical condition criteria. Criteria D, these symptoms do not meet the criteria for any other mental disorder criteria. Criteria E. His symptoms have caused significant distress and shows your occupational [sic] impairment.”
The Medical Assessor diagnosed the claimant as having a major depressive disorder of moderate degree with anxious distress. He said the claimant’s condition had become chronic.
The Medical Assessor provided the following psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS);
| Psychiatric diagnoses | 1. Major depressive disorder | 2. |
| 3. | 4. | |
| Psychiatric treatment description | Pharmacotherapy | |
| Category | Class | Reason for Decision |
| 1. Self Care and Personal Hygiene | 2 | I have assessed him as Class 2 mild impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho relies on his wife to do the cooking. He's not able to do any cleaning. He can go shopping with his wife. In terms of having a shower, he has a shower once a week and he requires physical assistance from his wife to shower because of his pain. Mr. Odisho struggles with activities of daily living. However, part of his inability to engage in cleaning and showering is his chronic pain and hence, keeping aside the pain factor and using my professional judgment, I have classed him as Class 2 mild impairment. |
| 2. Social and Recreational Activities | 3 | I have assessed him as Class 3 moderate impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho has been attending social events regularly. He states that he attends the social events only because it is part of his custom and he has to. However, he's never been able to attend the social event without his children or his wife. Even if he does attend, he does not |
| partake in any activities, he sits there in a corner on his own hence class 3 moderate impairment. | ||
| 3. Travel | 2 | I have assessed as Class 2 mild impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho can travel without a support person only to local and familiar places that is to the local shops or visiting a neighbour. He cannot travel to far away and unfamiliar places without a support person and hence, I have assessed him as Class 2 mild impairment. |
| 4. Social Functioning | 1 | I have assessed as Class 1 minor deficit. My rationale is Mr. Odisho states that his relationship with his wife is intact. He states that his relationship with his children is intact. Mr. Odisho did not have many friends prior to the subject MVA and he states that he has not lost many friends. |
| 5. Concentration, Persistence and Pace | 3 | I have assessed him as Class 3 moderate impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho is doing a basic course in English. He states that the course is quite basic but even then he has been taking two years and not able to complete it. He states that he's not able to concentrate for more than five to ten minutes. He states that he cannot read newspaper articles, books, or magazines. Struggles to concentrate while watching television or movie shows and he describes his memory as poor. Hence, Class 3 moderate impairment. |
| 6. Adaptation | 3 | I have assessed him as Class 3 moderate impairment. My rationale is Mr. Odisho is not able to work since the subject MVA. Mr. Odisho is doing a basic English course which is ten hours per week. I have assessed as Class 3 moderate impairment. My rationale is part of his inability to work is the chronic pain and his physical injury. Hence, keeping aside the pain factor and using my professional judgment, I have classed him as Class 3 moderate impairment. Also, I have classed him as Class 3 moderate impairment for the fact that his ability to handle stress has significantly decreased. |
| List classes in ascending order: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3 | ||
| Median Class Value: 2.5= 3 | ||
| Aggregate Score: 14 | ||
| % Whole Person Impairment: 13 % | ||
The claimant had denied any history of mental illness to the Medical Assessor. However, a diagnosis of depression and anxiety diagnosed in 2011 was brought to his attention. The claimant responded that he had suffered from stress as life was hard back then and he had to provide for his family. The Medical Assessor attributed 0% WPI for the claimant’s pre-existing psychiatric condition and make no deduction.
There are medicolegal reports from Dr Keller of 16 May 2022 who said he could find no evidence of any physical injury caused by the accident, Dr Dias of 17 October 2022 who assessed WPI at 16%, and from Medical Assessor Woo who assessed permanent impairment at 3%. These all relate to the claimant’s physical disabilities.
Dr Teoh provided a report of 27 June 2023 going to the claimant’s psychiatric disabilities and assessed 17% WPI. He diagnosed the claimant with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. He said the claimant had a pre-existing psychiatric condition which he attributed to him being traumatised during his time in Iraq when he worked as a soldier. Medical Assessor Woo attributed 2% WPI to this pre-existing condition which he deducted from his WPI assessment of 19%, leaving a final WPI assessment of 17%.
Clinical notes from Guirgis Family Medical Practice have been seen and date from
17 January 2023 to 10 March 2025. There is only one entry for psychiatric disability, on
27 April 2023 referring to tension and a diagnosis of anxiety and depression.
Medical examination
The claimant was examined by Medical Assessor Yeates and Senior Medical Assessor Baker on 2 July 2025. Their report follows:
1. Psychosocial history and pre-accident history
Mr Odisho was born in Baghdad, Iraq, and raised with his mother, father, two younger sisters, and two younger brothers. His father worked as a labourer at a vegetable oil company, and his mother was a bank employee. The family had sufficient material wealth, including ample funds, food, and clothing. There was no domestic violence.
Mr Odisho reflected positively on his early life, noting that until 1979—when the war with Iran began—his home life was supportive and stable. He was a healthy child and young person and felt close to his family. He denied experiencing any physical, sexual, or emotional trauma during early life. Mr Odisho is a Christian and was part of a persecuted minority in Iraq.Mr Odisho attended local schools in Baghdad and was an average student. He had a circle of friends but was never suspended or expelled. He completed school at 14 and then started an apprenticeship as a plumber, which he pursued for about four to five years. During the regime change and the Iran-Iraq war commencing in 1979,
Mr Odisho reported being harassed and persecuted by relevant political groups because of his religion. However, he denied ever being kidnapped, tortured, or subjected to extreme acts of violence or intimidation. He enlisted in the army, serving mainly in a communications role, with some frontline exposure. He reported being persecuted within the army due to his Christian faith and was prevented from actively engaging in combat, as directed by his commander.In his army service, Mr Odisho was exposed to 12 years of war or war-like conditions, including missile and rocket attacks and direct engagement with the enemy. He was discharged in 1991 and returned to work as a plumber. He reported being pursued by Iraq's ruling political class, which led him to leave Iraq for Jordan in 1994, where he remained until 1998. He denied experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms such as nightmares, flashbacks, depersonalisation, or derealisation related to his military service. After a brief period in Lebanon, where he met his wife, he emigrated to Australia. His wife was an Australian citizen, and he was able to enter Australia with her support. They have four children together. After arriving in Australia in 1999, Mr Odisho worked as a plumber, waiter, carpenter, and eventually as a painter, running his own business. He painted from 2006 until 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted his business.
Mr Odisho denied any contact with mental health services before 2011. He was unable to elaborate on the circumstances leading to his GP prescribing an antidepressant, but he reported that it was after a previous car accident. He has no history of psychiatric admissions or suicidal ideation, attempts, or intent. He is under the care of his GP,
Dr Emil Giurguis. His other health conditions include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia. He takes a statin, oral hypoglycaemic, and antihypertensive medication but was unable to provide further details about his current non-psychotropic medicines.There is no history suggesting a primary psychotic illness or bipolar disorder. There is no family history of major mental illness, addiction, or completed suicide. Mr Odisho drinks small quantities of alcohol at night and does not take illicit drugs. He started gambling on poker machines, spending up to $300-$500 per month until the COVID-19 pandemic. He has no forensic history and has never been admitted to a psychiatric facility.
2. History of the motor accident
On 20 July 2020, Mr Odisho was driving along the Cumberland Highway and was stationary at a set of traffic lights. While stopped in the right lane, he was hit on the back left side of his vehicle and pushed approximately 5 metres. He was wearing a seatbelt, and the airbags did not deploy. He was able to exit the car without issue and did not lose consciousness. An ambulance attended the scene, but according to
Mr Odisho, “did not do anything.” Police did not attend. Mr Odisho went home, reported multiple aches and pains, and ultimately consulted his GP with musculoskeletal pain.3. History of symptoms and treatment following the motor accident
Mr Odisho reports that psychological symptoms began soon after the accident, including nightmares involving trucks approaching him and jumping to avoid collisions with motor vehicles. He mentions that his weight has fluctuated significantly by 25 kg, sometimes dropping to as low as 50 kg. He describes a chronic pain syndrome that reaches from his occiput down to his toes and reports altered sensation in parts of his feet. He reported a persistent low mood, feelings of hopelessness, worthlessness, and pessimism about the future, without pathological guilt. He was prescribed 50 mg of sertraline, which he took for a period.
4. Details of any relevant injuries or conditions sustained since the motor accident
Mr Odisho has no history of any psychiatric impairment that existed before the motor accident. He underwent psychiatric treatment sometime around 2011There is enough evidence to show that there was no psychiatric impairment contributing to his current symptoms or permanent psychiatric impairment because of this motor accident . He said that he would remember his previous war experiences once or twice a year. There is no evidence that he was impaired when rememrbing his past experiences. He did not have distressing intrusive post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms before the accident.
CLINICAL EXAMINATION
5. Mental state examination
The mental state examination showed a man of Middle Eastern descent who appeared consistent with his stated age, with a thick, greying beard, a slightly reserved social manner, but generally appropriate and polite. His mood was low, and his affect was restricted, though there were several moments of spontaneous levity. His thought content was reality-oriented, with no signs of psychosis or suicidality, but he expressed lamentations about chronic pain and low mood. His thought form was normal. The speech was grammatically correct and well-structured, but somewhat reduced in quantity and spontaneous elaboration. Judgment was not acutely impaired, and there were no perceptual disturbances. Cognition appeared grossly normal, with no need for formal testing. Insight was limited.
6. Current functioning
Mr Odisho lives with his wife and children in a rented home. He showers once a week and eats one larger meal, snacking throughout the day. His wife does most of the housework, and Mr Odisho helps with some light chores. He is not involved in any recreational groups or organised social activities but is a member of the Smithfield RSL, which he visits infrequently alone. He occasionally sees a friend outside the house. Mr Odisho usually drives locally with his wife. He took a month off in 2025 to undergo dental work overseas. He describes his marriage as very good, and his relationships with his children are similarly positive. He mentions some loss of friendships. Mr Odisho was studying English but has received a medical exemption from the course for a year due to pain and psychological issues. He spends most of his day watching television and keeps up with political issues from his region of birth (the Middle East). His last job was in 2019, and he hasn't done any unpaid work since then. He reports that he is unable to perform more than light duties because he is unable to raise his arm.
Determinations
7. Diagnosis
Mr Odisho gave a history consistent with Major Depressive disorder. As per the DSM 5 criteria, Mr Odisho confirmed a persistent depressed mood and reduction in pursuit of pleasurable activities. He has had significant weight change, including large fluctuations up to 25kg due to variable appetite. He has ongoing disturbed sleep, concentration deficit and fatigue. His condition is not otherwise attributable to substance misuse or another medical condition. He has a substantial functional impairment.
Regarding the DSM-5-TR code F32.1 criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, for Class A, five or more symptoms demonstrated by Mr Odisho are as follows;
Major Depressive Disorder – DSM 5
A. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week
period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms
is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.
Note: Do not include symptoms that are clearly attributable to another medical condition.
1. Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective
report (e.g., feels sad, empty, hopeless) or observation made by others (e.g.,
appears tearful). (Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.)
This criterion is met by the claimant reported a depressed mood described by the claimant as him feeling constantly low in his emotions most days, for most of the day.
2. Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the
day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation).
This criterion is met by the claimant’s decline of accepting invitations to socialise with his community. The claimant reported diminished interest in socialising with his extended family and friends.
3. Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than
5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day.
(Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gain.)
This criterion is met by the claimant’s reduced appetite with decreased weight by up to 25 kg. he reported that he may unintentionally loss weight down to about 50kgs without him been physically ill.
4. Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day.
This criterion is met by the claimant’s report of his sleep been frequently disrupted by nightmares involving truck where he would awake from sleep and have difficulty returning to sleep.
5. Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not
merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down).
6. Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day.
This criterion is met by the claimant’s report of feeling fatigues and low in his energy most days. He would not participate in the activities of the home due to his low energy.
7. Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional)
nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick).
8. Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either
by subjective account or as observed by others).
This criteria is met by the claimant as he was observed to be indecisive whilst talking about his losses since the onset of this psychological injury because of the motor accident.
9. Recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide.
Following examination of the claimant, we were satisfied that taking into account his subjective history, there were no inconsistencies with the available medical evidence and the account was correct. We accept that symptoms described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are present because the symptoms reported by the claimant were consistent with the forwarded documents with this referral.
Regarding class B, we are satisfied that the symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. This is because the symptoms reported by the claimant were consistent with the forwarded documents with this referral.
As to the remaining classes C, D and E, we are satisfied that;
a) The episode is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another
medical condition.
b) The occurrence of the major depressive episode is not better explained by schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, delusional disorder, or other specified and unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders.
c) There has never been a manic episode or a hypomanic episode.
These criteria are met by as the claimant does not have in the followed documents evidence of suffering from any of these conditions documented in the above paragraphs a, b, and c. The claimant has never suffered from a manic or hypomanic episode, the claimant has never suffered from schizophrenia or any of the schizophreniform disorder listed in paragraph b and the claimant’s psychological injury is not affected by any medical condition or substance use disorder.
Degree Of Permanent Impairment Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale
The determination as to permanent impairment is made in accordance with the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Fourth Edition) and Part 6 of the Motor Accident Guidelines.
| Psychiatric diagnoses | 1. Major depressive disorder | 2. |
| 3. | 4. | |
| Psychiatric treatment description | Pharmacotherapy | |
| Category | Class | Reason for Decision |
| 1. Self-care and Personal Hygiene | 2 | Mr Odisho lives independently with the support of his wife and children. He bathes weekly and eats daily. He can do some light chores around the house to help his wife. He did contribute to the cleaning of the home as well as the laundry. He was less able to maintain his garden due to loss of interest in these outside duties. |
| 2. Social and Recreational Activities | 3 | Mr Odisho belongs to no regular social or recreational groups or structured activities. He does not go to church very often and if invited to a social event, he is not actively involved. He will go out alone to see a friend infrequently. He reported his interest in attending extended family and social events with his community had reduced since the motor accident. |
| 3. Travel | 2 | Mr Odisho drives locally, usually with the accompaniment of his wife. He travelled overseas for one month for dental work in 2025. He was able to travel to his dentist and was not distressed by his international travel. |
| 4. Social Functioning | 2 | Mr Odisho described his marriage as “very good” and his relationships with his children as similarly intact and positive. He had lost most of his friendships from his community. He occasionally has a friend come to his house but reported strains on friendships. |
| 5. Concentration, Persistence and Pace | 2 | Mr Odisho was previously studying and English course, but has obtained a medical exemption for one year due to pain and psychological symptoms. He watches television for most of the day, following Middle Eastern politics with interest. He sustained concentration throughout the interview that was of about 90 minutes duration Without requiring prompting to remain on topic. He was able to provide a coherent narrative of his experiences immediately prior to the motor accident and his losses since the motor accident. |
| 6. Adaptation | 4 | Mr Odisho last worked in 2019, his business folding due to COVID-19 and he did not return subsequent to his accident. He is unable to work due to psychological symptoms. He had low energy and easily fatigues beyond light duties. |
| List classes in ascending order: 2,2,2,2,3,4 | ||
| Median Class Value: 2 | ||
| Aggregate Score: 15 | ||
| % Whole Person Impairment: 8% | ||
*%WPI = Percentage Whole Person Impairment
Pre-existing impairment from first accident about 2011
| Psychiatric diagnoses | 1. DSM-5-TR F32.5 Major depressive disorder in full remission | 2. |
| 3. | 4. | |
| Psychiatric treatment description | Pharmacotherapy | |
| Category | Class | Reason for Decision |
| 1. Self-care and Personal Hygiene | 1 | Mr Odisho had no pre-accident self care deficit and lived independently. |
| 2. Social and Recreational Activities | 1 | Mr Odisho attended church, and had an active social life. |
| 3. Travel | 1 | Mr Odisho travelled independently without limitation from psychological symptoms. |
| 4. Social Functioning | 1 | Mr Odisho’s marriage was functioning well and his relationships with his children were good. He had an active social life. |
| 5. Concentration, Persistence and Pace | 1 | Mr Odisho managed his business without issue and worked as a painter, sustaining concentration in both. |
| 6. Adaptation | 1 | Mr Odisho worked full time as a painter, although his business had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| List classes in ascending order: 1,1,1,1,1,1 | ||
| Median Class Value: 1 | ||
| Aggregate Score: 6 | ||
| % Whole Person Impairment: 0% | ||
%WPI = Percentage Whole Person Impairment
Effects of Treatment
There has been no substantive improvement in function or diminution in symptoms due to treatment that justifies an adjustment for treatment. Mr Odisho has recovered no functional capacities beyond his initial impairment after the accident, which has thus remained stable or five or more years.
Final Whole person impairment 8% WPI.
The Panel met on 16 July 2025 to discuss the Medical Assessors findings on examination. The Legal Member of this Panel did not participate in the medical examination but prior to the Panel meeting on 16 July 2025, the legal Member had the benefit of reading and considering the Medical Assessors examination report. On 16 July 2025, when the Panel met, all members discussed the examination findings and the issues going to causation and assessment of WPI. It is from this teleconference of the Panel that the Panel has agreed and reached its conclusion and determination.
The Panel adopts the report of Medical Assessor Yeates and Senior Medical Assessor Baker.
Causation/Reasons
Mr Odisho's diagnosed depression and anxiety prior to the subject motor vehicle accident was in remission as he states that he was going on a fishing trip with his relatives at the time of the subject motor vehicle accident. His depressive and anxiety symptoms have exacerbated in the context of his chronic pain and his inability to be active. Hence, his diagnosis of major depressive disorder.
The claimant had a pre-existing disorder however he was not undergoing treatment for this condition for some time before the accident. On the day of the accident he was going fishing with relatives and was leading an unremarkable life.
Following the accident the claimant has not sought psychiatric assistance. He was assessed for psychiatric impairment by Dr Teoh 17% WPI. This followed the claimant reporting that he had significant chronic pain and physical disability. In that regard though, Medical Assessor Woo assessed physical WPI at 3%. His certificate however was revoked and a Medical Review Panel found the claimant’s physical injuries were assessed at 10% WPI, indicating that his injuries were not insignificant.
The Panel must ask itself in considering whether the accident contributed to the claimant’s injuries as referred to it by the Commission, whether his condition arises because of contribution by the accident, and whether the accident materially contributed to that condition.
On the balance of probabilities, can it be said that the claimant suffered a recognisable psychiatric injury? For the reasons discussed above in the report of the Medical Assessors, the Panel does find that this can be answered in the affirmative.
Would the impairment have occurred, if not for the accident? The Panel is satisfied that the accident and impact has had a more than negligible effect on the claimant’s psychiatric condition suffered by the claimant. This is because up to and at the time of the accident his day to day activities were not restricted by any pre-existing condition, and it is only following the accident that he has been in distress. Prior to the accident the claimant was leading an unremarkable life with his family and limited friends. The accident has materially contributed to his diagnosis of major depressive disorder.
Conclusion
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident by way of a rear end collision on
20 July 2020. The claimant had suffered a previous psychiatric condition, but this was several years before the accident and did not affect him at the time of the accident.
Following the accident, the claimant’s condition deteriorated, and the Panel has diagnosed a major depressive disorder with an assessment of 8% WPI.
Determination
The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Nagesh of 22 January 2021.
The claimant has a major depressive disorder.
The Panel assesses the claimant as having a WPI of 8%.
0
2
0