| DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL | |
| CITATION: | Kotb v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2023] NSWPICMP 310 |
| CLAIMANT: | Mustafa Kotb |
INSURER: | AAI Ltd t/as GIO |
| REVIEW Panel | |
| PRINCIPAL MEMBER: | John Harris |
| MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Michael Couch |
MEDICAL ASSESSOR: | Neil Berry |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 30 June 2023 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; the claimant suffered injury on 10 October 2020 in a rear-end collision; the dispute related to the assessment of threshold injury and treatment and care; claimant re-examined; original review submissions limited to threshold dispute; claimant argued that all matters reviewed; no contrary response from insurer; review is of medical assessment (section 7.26(1)) and a new assessment of all matters (section 7.26(6)); Meeuwissen v Boden referred to; Panel reviewed all medical assessment disputes; significant pre-existing history of right knee, right shoulder and lumbar spine pain; no plausible medical explanation why motor accident caused or aggravated right knee condition; subsequent falls causing further injuries to arms due to right knee instability not caused by motor accident; deterioration of shoulder pathology from 2012 to 2021 explicable by normal ageing process associated with significant pathology and inflammatory arthritis; findings made that claimant suffered threshold injuries; findings made on treatment disputes noting distinction between “reasonable and necessary” and causation; Held – assessment of threshold injury confirmed; treatment and care certificates revoked. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | Review Panel Assessment of Threshold Injury Replacement Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 The Review Panel confirms the certificate dated 8 November 2022 that the claimant suffered threshold injuries. Medical Assessment –Treatment and Care Review Panel Assessment of Treatment and Care and The Review Panel revokes the certificate dated 8 November 2022 and issues a new certificate determining that: · the following treatment and care: · ten sessions of cleaning and lawn mowing; · referral to Professor George Murrell; · referral to Dr Ian Hargreaves, hand and wrist surgeon; · MRI scan of the shoulders; · MRI scans of the hands and wrists; · X-ray and ultrasound of both shoulders, and · provision of a TENS machine. IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY in the circumstances. The following treatment and care: · ten sessions of cleaning and lawn mowing; · referral to Dr Ian Hargreaves, hand and wrist surgeon; · MRI scans of the hands and wrists; · MRI scans of the shoulders. · X-ray and ultrasound of both shoulders, and · provision of a TENS machine. DOES NOT RELATE TO THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT. The following treatment and care: · referral to Professor Murrell RELATES TO THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT. |
REASONS
BACKGROUND
Mr Mustafa Kotb (the claimant) sustained injury in a motor accident on 10 October 2020 when the insured driver caused a rear-end collision (the motor accident).[1]
[1] This is only a brief and non-exhaustive summary of the motor accident.
The insurer is liable to pay to Mr Kotb any damages and/or statutory compensation entitlements…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kotb v AAI Limited t/as GIO and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] NSWPICMP 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the claimant's injuries met the threshold for compensability and if the treatment and care provided were reasonable and necessary. The claimant argued that all aspects of the review should be considered, given the limited submissions by the insurer on the review of treatment and care. The insurer did not contest the broader review scope.
The panel held that the review encompassed both the medical assessment of threshold injuries and a new assessment of all matters, as per sections 7.26(1) and 7.26(6) of the Act. The panel found that the claimant's pre-existing conditions, including right knee, right shoulder, and lumbar spine pain, did not plausibly link to the motor accident. The claimant's subsequent falls, resulting from knee instability, were also not attributed to the accident. The deterioration of shoulder pathology was considered explicable by natural aging processes and pre-existing inflammatory arthritis. Despite these findings, the panel confirmed that the claimant's injuries met the threshold for compensability. However, the treatment and care certificates were revoked due to the distinction between what was reasonable and necessary and the causation of the injuries.
The court ordered that the assessment of threshold injury be confirmed, while the treatment and care certificates were revoked.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.