Lazkani v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI - [2025] NSWPIC 320

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Lazkani v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI [2025] NSWPIC 320
CLAIMANT:	Katherine Lazkani
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as AAMI
MEMBER:	Senior Member Brett Williams
DATE OF DECISION:	4 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; insurer requested that the claimant undergo neuropsychological assessment; claimant refused to attend; insurer sought an order under section 6.27 that if the claimant did not attend neuropsychological assessment the assessment under Division 7.6 cannot be continued; whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for not complying with request; whether the request unreasonable, unnecessarily repetitious or dangerous; Held – neuropsychological assessment of the claimant not relevant to the issues in dispute and the request that she do so is unreasonable; claimant should not be required to attend medical assessment that is not relevant to the issues in dispute; claimant has a reasonable excuse for not complying with insurer’s request.

BACKGROUND

Katherine Lazkani (claimant) was injured in a motor accident on 10 February 2022 (accident). She subsequently made a claim for damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on AAI Limited t/as AAMI (insurer). Liability for the claim has been admitted.
The claimant has referred her claim to the Commission for assessment under s 7.36 of the MAI Act. She seeks awards for non-economic loss, past economic loss, and future economic loss.
The proceedings were referred to me for assessment. A number of preliminary conferences have been held. At a preliminary conference held on 23 May 2025 the parties informed the Commission that there is a dispute about the claimant’s permanent impairment as a result of a psychological injury caused by the accident. The dispute is to be the subject of an application for medical assessment.
Given the live medical dispute the position of the parties was that the proceedings should be referred to the stood over list subject to one matter. That matter relates to whether the claimant must undergo neuropsychological assessment at the request of the insurer and the consequences that flow from her refusal to do so.

THE DISPUTE

The insurer wants the claimant to undergo neuropsychological assessment. The claimant objects. At the preliminary conference held on 23 May 2025 the insurer sought a direction from the Commission requiring the claimant to undergo the assessment. Directions were made for the provision of submissions by the parties addressing the insurer’s application. As will be seen, the insurer varied its application to reflect the fact that the Commission’s powers do not extend to making the direction the insurer initially sought and are limited to the remedies found in s 6.27.
In written submissions filed in support of its application the insurer argues that the request for a neuropsychological assessment “satisfies” s 6.27(1) because it is not unreasonable, unnecessarily repetitious or dangerous, and seeks directions that:
(a)    it is to make an appointment at the earliest possible time;
(b)    the appointment will be a joint examination “if the claimant wishes”, and
(c)    failure by the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lazkani v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 320
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lazkani v AAI Ltd t/as AAMI, the claimant, Mr Lazkani, brought an action against his insurer, AAMI, concerning the terms of his motor accident insurance. Mr Lazkani had suffered injuries in a motor accident and had disputes with AAMI regarding his entitlements under the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017. The insurer had requested that Mr Lazkani undergo a neuropsychological assessment as part of the assessment process for his claim. Mr Lazkani refused to attend the assessment, leading to AAMI seeking a court order under section 6.27 of the Act, which would require Mr Lazkani to undergo the assessment or risk the cessation of his assessment under Division 7.6.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Lazkani had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the insurer’s request for a neuropsychological assessment. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the insurer’s request was unreasonable, unnecessarily repetitious, or dangerous. The central issue was whether the neuropsychological assessment was relevant to the issues in dispute and whether requiring Mr Lazkani to undergo such an assessment was justified.

The court found that the neuropsychological assessment was not relevant to the issues in dispute between Mr Lazkani and AAMI. The court ruled that Mr Lazkani should not be required to attend a medical assessment that was not pertinent to the claims being made. The court also concluded that the request for a neuropsychological assessment was unreasonable. Therefore, Mr Lazkani had a reasonable excuse for not complying with AAMI’s request. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that any medical assessments requested in the context of motor accident claims are directly relevant to the issues at hand.

As a result of the court's findings, Mr Lazkani was not required to undergo the neuropsychological assessment. The court's decision underscored the principle that claimants should not be subjected to unnecessary medical evaluations that do not contribute to resolving the issues in their claims. The court’s ruling provided clarity on the parameters of reasonable requests for medical assessments in motor accident insurance disputes.

Orders