Noun v AAI Limited t/as AAMI - [2025] NSWPICMP 268

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	Noun v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2025] NSWPICMP 268
CLAIMANT:	Noaman Noun
INSURER:	AAI Limited trading as AAMI
REVIEW PANEL
MEMBER:	Alexander Bolton
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Tai-Tak Wan
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Margaret Gibson
DATE OF DECISION:	17 April 2025
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); whether the claimant suffered a threshold injury; Medical Assessor (MA) determined that the claimant had suffered threshold injuries; claimant involved in an accident being a rear end collision causing the claimant to then collide with the rear of the car in front of him; claimant injured his cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, left shoulder and right shoulder; claimant asserted that he had previously demonstrated two objective signs of radiculopathy but this was rejected by the Review Panel as there was no evidence of the nature of assessment; claimant medically examined by the Review Panel and found not to have any signs of radiculopathy; Held – claimant had suffered threshold injuries; MAC confirmed.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION 1. The Panel affirms the certificate of Medical Assessor Cameron dated 27 January 2024. 2. The following injuries were caused by the motor accident: (a) cervical spine – soft tissue injury; (b) head – soft tissue injury, there was no evidence of concussion, and the head was not causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident; (c) lumbar spine – soft tissue injury; (d) left shoulder – soft tissue injury, and (e) right shoulder – soft tissue injury. 3. The following injuries are threshold injuries: (a) cervical spine – soft tissue injury; (b) head – soft tissue injury; (c) lumbar spine – soft tissue injury; (d) left shoulder – soft tissue injury, and (e) right shoulder – soft tissue injury.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

This is an application by the claimant for review of a certificate and reasons of Medical Assessor Cameron (Medical Assessor) dated 27 January 2024.
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 23 March 2023. At issue is whether the claimant has suffered threshold injuries.
The following injuries were referred by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for assessment:
(a)    cervical spine - discal injury with mild bilateral neural exit foramen narrowing at the C3/4, C4/5 and C5/6 levels and radiculopathy into the upper limbs;
(b)    head - post-concussion headache;
(c)    lumbar spine - discal injury with mild bilateral neural exit foramen narrowing at the L4/5 level and radiculopathy into the lower limbs;
(d)    left shoulder - rotator cuff injury/ referred pain from cervical spine, and
(e)    right shoulder - rotator cuff injury/ referred pain from cervical spine.
The Medical Assessor found following injuries caused by the motor accident:
(a)    cervical spine – soft tissue injury;
(b)    lumbar spine – soft tissue injury;
(c)    head – soft tissue injury;
(d)    left shoulder – soft tissue injury, and
(e)    right shoulder – soft tissue injury,
were threshold injuries for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (Act).
Regarding 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 Noun v AAI Limited 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] NSWPICMP 268
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Noun v AAI Limited t/as AAMI, the court was tasked with reviewing a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) issued under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The primary dispute was whether the claimant, who was involved in a rear-end collision and subsequently collided with the vehicle in front, had suffered injuries that met the threshold for compensation. The claimant argued that he had suffered cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, left shoulder, and right shoulder injuries, which were severe enough to warrant compensation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the criteria for determining threshold injuries under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and the validity of the Review Panel’s assessment of the claimant’s injuries. The claimant had previously asserted that he exhibited two objective signs of radiculopathy, a condition which the Review Panel found to be unsubstantiated due to a lack of evidence regarding the nature of the assessment. During the medical examination conducted by the Review Panel, no signs of radiculopathy were identified.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the claimant’s medical history and the findings of the Review Panel. The Review Panel concluded that the claimant had suffered threshold injuries, despite the absence of radiculopathy. The court upheld the Review Panel’s decision, confirming that the claimant had indeed suffered injuries that met the threshold for compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. Consequently, the Medical Assessment Certificate was confirmed, and the claimant was eligible for compensation.

Orders