Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Paul

In the matter of Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance versus Paul, the court was tasked with determining the extent of permanent impairment suffered by Mr Paul as a result of a motor accident that occurred in 2015. Mr Paul was riding his motorcycle when he was struck head-on by a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. The collision resulted in severe injuries including a traumatic right hip dislocation and right acetabular fracture, a fractured left scaphoid, a TFCC tear, and a tear of the membranous band of the scapholunate ligament. Mr Paul underwent multiple surgical procedures on his left arm, including a complex medial femoral condyle flap from his left knee to his left wrist, in an attempt to stabilise the fractured scaphoid. These procedures left him with various scars on his left arm and leg.

The primary legal issue before the court was the quantification of Mr Paul's permanent impairment, specifically whether the scarring from the surgical procedures and flap translocation was attributable to the motor accident and how it should be assessed under the Motor Accident Permanent Impairment Guidelines. The court was required to determine if the scarring should be considered under clause 1.263 of the Guidelines, which addresses the "total effect of the scarring on the organ system." The claimant argued that the scarring on his left arm and leg was a direct consequence of the accident, while the insurer contended that the scarring should not be considered in the impairment assessment.

The court found that the scarring on Mr Paul's left arm and leg, resulting from the surgical procedures and the flap translocation, was indeed related to the motor accident. It ruled that the scarring should be assessed under clause 1.263, which mandates an evaluation of the total effect of scarring on the organ system. The court determined that the combined scarring resulted in a 2% impairment. Taking this into account, Mr Paul's overall permanent impairment was reassessed at 15%, which included impairments to his right lower limb (5%) and left upper limb (8%).

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that Mr Paul's permanent impairment be reassessed to reflect the total impairment of 15%, incorporating the scarring on his left arm and leg. The court's decision ensures that all aspects of the claimant's injuries, including the scarring from necessary surgical procedures, are properly accounted for in the impairment assessment.