Pearson v AAI Limited t/as GIO
[2024] NSWPIC 289
•16 May 2024
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Pearson v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2024] NSWPIC 289 |
| CLAIMANT: | Brian Pearson |
| INSURER: | GIO |
| MEMBER: | Alan Cowley |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 16 May 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999; assessment of damages only; head-on collision involving B-double truck and “tipper and dog” truck combination; claimant had to be airlifted to hospital after responders took 90 minutes to cut him from cabin; claimant 48 years old at time of accident and now 55.5 years; injuries included medium acquired brain injury, laceration to the frontoparietal scalp, comminuted compound fracture of the right kneecap, fractures to C4 and C5 vertebrae, partial thickness tear to the left shoulder, fractures to the nose and other facial lacerations, multiple minor lacerations and abrasions; claimant has undergone 9 surgeries including knee replacement and amputation of the right little finger, with the prospect of at least one further surgery; claimant suffers anger, anxiety nightmares and other psychological sequalae, constant pain and deteriorating degenerative changes, claimant has been certified unfit for work but continued to “moonlight” driving whilst claiming weekly expenses against Workers Compensation insurer; issues of credibility with claimant and wife concerning same for “double dipping”; credibility does not affect actual injuries; Held – total damages of $1,750,793.54 assessed. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE In accordance with Part 4.4 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, the Commission’s assessment is: 1. The amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim is $1,750,793.54. 2. The amount of the claimant’s costs in the matter is $101,404.78 inclusive of GST. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
The Claimant was 48 at the time of his accident and is now 55.5 years.
On the day of the accident during the course of his employment as a truck driver for “Pace Bulk Haulage”, the Claimant was driving a “tipper and dog” truck combination along the Pacific Highway at Coolongolook when a B double truck combination veered into the Claimant’s truck colliding head-on and causing a serious accident and major injuries to the Claimant.
The Insurer has admitted liability and conceded the Claimant’s entitlement to non-economic loss.
The Claimant suffered multiple injuries all of which will be dealt with later in this report. Of note however he did suffer medium brain damage and now suffers post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with depression. This diagnosis has impacted upon his cognitive functioning and anger management which was noticeable during the Hearing.
The Claimant cannot recall the accident nor the few minutes before and at least a week after.
First responders took about 80 minutes to remove him from the crushed cabin of his truck. He was then taken by helicopter and admitted to John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle.
The following issues have arisen in this matter:
a. What is the nature and extent of the Claimant’s injuries?
b. What Is the Claimant’s non-economic loss?
c. What is the Claimant’s past economic loss?
d. What is the Claimant’s future economic loss?
e. What is the Claimant’s past treatment expenses?
f. What is the Claimant’s future treatment expenses?
g. Is the Claimant entitled to past gratuitous or commercial care?
h. Is the Claimant entitled to future gratuitous or commercial care?
BACKGROUND
Mr Pearson was born in Taree. His parents split when he was about 5 years old and from that time, he lived with his grandparents at Jesmond a suburb of Newcastle until he left their home at the age of about 24.
He had difficulties with writing, reading and arithmetic but excelled at manual arts subjects. He enjoyed sport and other outdoor activities. He left school at the age of 14 without completing year 9 and worked in various labouring positions.
His father and grandfather had been involved in truck driving. The Claimant obtained his heavy combination licence at around the age of 30 and worked for a series of transport companies, the last being Pace.
He met his wife Sharon when he was about 25 and they commenced living together at that time. She had 4 children from her previous marriage of which 2 of her boys Brendan and Joshua live with the Claimant and Sharon. The other 2 girls live at Medowie. Sharon and the Claimant have 2 children together namely Matthew who lives at Lemon Tree Passage and Emily who lives with them at home. Also living with the Claimant and his family is Emily’s daughter McKenzie. And another child.
Sharon works as a cleaner working around 54 hours per fortnight.
THE ACCIDENT
At the time of the accident the Claimant was travelling north from the central coast, where he started, to Brisbane.
The Claimant has no recollection of the accident itself but was advised that it was a head-on collision with the other driver crossing into his lane.
He was advised that he was taken by ambulance and helicopter to John Hunter Hospital in an induced coma. His first memory was waking up in John Hunter Hospital approximately a week later.
He was in John Hunter Hospital for about 3 weeks until 1 November 2016 and then was transferred to Hunter Valley Private Hospital for rehabilitation for another 2 weeks until 18 November 2016.
He was then discharged home in a neck brace, a right hand brace and a right leg brace.
His injuries had included a significant head injury with lacerations, a fractured nose, fractured right kneecap, fractured C4/5 vertebrae, a fractured right first rib and an injury to his right wrist and right hand, particularly his little finger.
When he got home, he was unable to do much at all and Sharon effectively did everything for him. He was in a neck brace for about 6 weeks and a hand brace for about 8 weeks and a leg brace for about 6 weeks.
A Workers Compensation Claim was lodged with the employers insurer GIO which was accepted. That Insurer funded his medical treatment and weekly expenses.
The Claimant states that he has never previously made any Workers Compensation Claim or Compensation Claim and has not had any significant injuries to the same parts of his body that were injured in the accident.
WHAT IS THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CLAIMANT’S INJURIES?
As the Insurer had conceded the Claimant’s injuries and impairment exceeded 10% whole person impairment there was no need for any assessment by independent experts from the Personal Injuries Commission.
Both parties relied on their independent medical experts to provide reports. I was grateful for the commonsense displayed by the parties to engage jointly, Associate Professor Jennifer Batchelor Consultant Neuropsychologist and Dr Peter Whetton Psychiatrist to assess the Claimant’s brain injury and psychological impairment.
Initially the Insurer qualified Associate Professor Michael Shatwell who listed the Claimant’s injuries as including:
·Comminuted compound fracture of the right kneecap.
·Closed contusion of the left knee.
·Fracture dislocation of the right little finger.
·Laceration to the right frontoparietal scalp.
·Undisplaced fracture of the right first rib.
·Fractures of the transfers processors of the C4 and C5 vertebrae.
·Contusion of the left shoulder with later evidence of partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus tendon.
·Fractures of the nasal bones with a small laceration at the bridge of the nose.
·Multiple minor lacerations and abrasions.
Initially Mr Pearson was in intensive care at John Hunter for about 7 days for treatment of his head injury. He underwent surgery to repair the comminuted fracture of the patella. He was being treated by a neurosurgeon and multiple orthopaedic surgeons.
He underwent surgery for his right little finger but this led to significant problems and it was eventually amputated in January 2020.
He underwent left shoulder repairs to the left rotator cuff in March 2017.
He continued to have multiple problems with his right knee and eventually underwent right knee replacement.
Ultimately, he underwent 9 surgery procedures to date and there is the prospect of at least 1 more.
Since the accident the Claimant has undergone extensive physiotherapy. He initially saw a psychologist for different periods of time, but his physical injuries became the overwhelming priority, particularly given because his psychological conditions caused him to avoid treatment as it causes him to be frustrated, anxious and angry.
He does continue to suffer significant anxiety, nightmares and recurrent thoughts concerning the accident.
His current complaints associated with his injuries are:
1. Pain and discomfort associated with numerous surgeries, hospitalisations, and rehabilitation regimes.
2. Pain, discomfort, and restriction of movement of the neck.
3. Pain, discomfort, and restriction of movement of left shoulder.
4. Pain, discomfort and restriction of movement and ultimate total knee replacement of the right knee.
5. Pain in the right hand including phantom pain at the site of the amputated finger.
6. Significant weight increase, due to pain, restriction of movement of (particularly) his right leg and associated injuries.
7. Inability to walk other than for short distances without the onset of pain in the right knee.
8. The Claimant has suffered personality and behavioural changes consequent upon PTSD, including irritability, anger, mood swings and frustration.
9. The Claimant submits he is unable to engage at his pre-injury occupation of truck driving and is effectively unemployable as a result of his injuries.
10. The Claimant submits that his injuries prevent him from doing the majority of tasks he was able to engage in prior to his accident, including housework, mowing lawns, or engaging in his hobbies including motor cycling and working on cars and trucks.
Basically there is little dispute between the parties concerning the injuries received by the Claimant in the subject accident. Any disagreement relates to the extent of the Claimant’s impairment, particularly on his past and future employment.
NON-ECONOMIC LOSS
The Claimant submits that he has suffered extensive physical injuries causing him to require lengthy periods of treatment and multiple serious surgeries and lengthy periods of rehabilitation. He is left with significant physical impairments which are permanent and which cause significant ongoing disabilities.
The Claimant has suffered significant psychological injuries which again are permanent and which have a severe impact on his day-to-day life.
The combination of physical and psychological injuries and impairments have been completely lifechanging for the Claimant and have affected his personal relationships with other people and particularly his immediate family.
The Claimant submits his inability to engage in employment has had an impact on his life and his mental state far beyond the calculable economic effects. The combination of the physical and psychological impairments has created an overall detrimental effect upon his life which is greater than the sum of their parts.
He will continue to suffer these disabilities for the rest of his life and these disabilities have come at a time in his life when he might have otherwise had expected to look forward to a secure and enjoyable retirement.
Having regard to the Claimant’s extensive injuries and symptomology the Claimant submits that his entitlement is towards the higher end of the available range and suggests a figure of $500,000.
The Insurer submits that that figure is out of the ballpark and suggests a figure of $300,000.
The upper limit of what can be awarded for non-economic loss is currently $620,000 as legislated by Section 124 of the Act. This amount increases annually every October.
There is no suggestion that there is any sliding scale or percentage for any impairment but is left to the subjective assessment of the Court or the Tribunal making the determination.
In my assessment the submission of the Claimant of an amount of $500,000 would be too generous but then again, an amount of $300,000 is far too parsimonious. In my assessment the appropriate amount is $450,000.
In coming to this assessment, I have had regard to the submissions made above by the Claimant which I mostly agree with. I have also had regard to the following:
·The accident occurred almost 8 years ago when the Claimant was a relatively young man of 48 years.
·He has had to undergo 9 surgical procedures some of which were possibly life threatening.
·He faces the prospect of yet another surgical procedure to replace his knee within say 10 years and the prospect of perhaps even a further surgery in 10 further years’ time.
·He has undergone years of treatment and rehabilitation.
·He is left with the frustration of further cognitive impairment coming from a low base. This has meant frustration with memory loss and concentration.
·The acquired brain injury has led to uncontrolled frustration and anger which has had impacts on his family and social life.
Not surprisingly the combination of all of the injuries, including the acquired brain injury has led to additional psychological impairment such as PTSD and depression.
There is little prospect of improvement, his chronic pain and impairments will deteriorate with aging.
He has been denied the prospect of job fulfillment.
PAST ECONOMIC LOSS
At the time of the accident the Claimant was working as a truck driver for Pace Bulk Haulage. He was on a 3-month trial having only just commenced. The outline of his duties was to drive a tipper truck with dog trailer from Central Coast to Brisbane return 3 times per week.
His past work history although commendable had not been consistent. He had previously lost his licence for a brief period.
The Claimant submits that he was employed on the basis of $25 per hour plus overtime and it was envisaged that once he had completed his trial period, he would receive income at a higher rate.
He did not return to work with Pace Haulage but apparently obtained employment with a friend in his business known as Seitaridis Bulk Transport.
The Claimant submits that as a result of his accident he was unable to work from 13 October 2016 until 16 December 2018 (112 weeks). The Claimant makes a claim of $1,060 net per week which comes to $118,720.
They further submit that comparable employees at Seitaridis as at December 2018 were earning an average of $1,126 net per week hence the claim for $1,060 net per week.
On 6 December 2018 having regained his licence the Claimant commenced work for Seitaridis Bulk Transport at Medowie. He worked there as a short haul truck driver on a full-time basis for a bit over a year until 6 January 2020 when he ceased work due to knee surgery and finger amputation on 6 January 2020. He was off work until 19 March 2020 (9 weeks). The Claimant submits that during this time comparable employees earned $1,139 net per week; they therefore claim $10,251.
The Claimant then returned to work on 19 March 2020 and worked until 16 August 2021 when he went off work for a total knee replacement surgery. He was off work until 4 November 2021, that is a period of 11.4 weeks. Comparable employees earned $1,209 per week during that time. Thus, a claim is made for $13,782 during that period.
The Claimant then returned to work at Seitaridis from 4 November 2021 until 27 January 2023 when he was again determined to be unfit for work mainly as a result of his psychological injuries. Comparable employees were earning $1,265 per week during that time. The Claimant makes a claim for 66 weeks being the period from 27 January 2023 until the date of assessment, a sum of $83,490.
The Claimant therefore makes a total claim of $226,243. A further claim for superannuation is made at 11% totalling $24,886.
As the subject accident was a workplace accident the Claimant had appropriately made a Workers Compensation Claim which had been accepted and during that time, he was paid benefits which I was advised total $225,373.98.
I note that the claim for loss of wages almost equals the amount of the Workers Compensation Claim.
It was agreed that the Fox v Wood claim was $63,610 which was conceded by the parties.
Counsel for the Insurer maintained a sustained cross-examination of the Claimant particularly with respect to his credibility. They noted and he accepted that he had had periods off work prior to the accident with respect to carpel tunnel syndrome. He admitted to having 3 months off work due to loss of licence for talking on the phone and other offences and 3 weeks off work again in 2014 for cellulitis in the right leg.
In August 2015 he seems to have had a period off work due to right carpel tunnel release and again in February 2016 when he underwent a left carpel tunnel release.
All of this was pre-accident.
The Claimant was then cross-examined about the fact that he was certified as being unfit for work and was advising the Workers Compensation Insurer that he was not working when in fact at various periods of time he had been working for Seitaridis as outlined above.
He stated under cross-examination that he was unaware that he was committing a fraud against the Workers Compensation Insurer because in fact he accepted that he was double dipping.
He also admitted that he had given misleading histories to various doctors including the Insurers and his own treating doctors that he was unfit for work when in fact he was working.
The Claimant became very angry during this cross-examination which developed into a shouting match. I adjourned the proceedings for some 5 minutes to allow the Claimant to recompose himself before recommencing.
Eventually the Claimant apologised for committing these fraudulent acts but of course the apology should go to his Workers Compensation Insurer not the CTP Insurer.
Ultimately, even though the Claimant failed the credibility test, I accept the Claimant’s submissions that in essence that does not alter the arithmetic as submitted by the Claimant and which I therefore accept. I note that in terms of double dipping the Claimant will be obliged to repay the monies repaid by way of weekly expenses to the Workers Compensation Insurer.
FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS
The Claimant is currently not working. It is submitted that he is totally incapacitated as a result of his physical and psychiatric injuries.
The Claimant has given their evidence and provided some histories to some of the expert doctors that he wants to return to work and is happiest when working.
Psychiatrist Dr Whetton, who was jointly qualified by the parties, stated “Mr Pearson expresses optimism that his current exacerbation will resolve, and he will be able to return to work truck driving and I am in agreement with this”. Dr Whetton further opined that at the time of writing his report he is totally incapacitated for work as a truck driver. He may be considered capable of doing suitable duties of yard work. He diagnosed chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and recent exacerbation due to an accident that had occurred while he was driving in November 2022 immediately in front of his vehicle. With respect to prognosis, he opined that his condition is a chronic one and symptoms have persisted from the date of accident and full resolution is unlikely.
Dr Whetton also noted that his mood state had been one characterised by irritability and anger which has led to significant strain in his family relations. His irritability and anger were on full display in the Hearing. He admitted under cross-examination that he gets angry with other drivers while on the road. It seems to me that this irritability and anger would cloud his judgment and, in my assessment, would make it inappropriate for him to be in command of a very heavily loaded truck and trailer combination driving interstate, or at all.
Claimant’s Counsel also relies on the reports of his General Practitioner Dr Burford who it is submitted is most cognisant of both his physical and psychological injuries and that it is impossible for the Claimant to return to work.
The Claimant also notes the most recent report of Psychiatrist Dr J Bertucen dated 15 March 2024 who opines that the Claimant is totally incapacitated as a result of his psychological injuries alone.
It is also noted that his physical incapacity is considerable. The Claimant submits that the combination of the physical and psychological disabilities as well as his age render him unemployable, a position reinforced by his GP.
The Claimant therefore submits that I should allow $1,600 net per week until the notional date of the Claimant’s retirement at 67 (11.75 years) which using the 5% multiplier tables (466.45) comes to $746,320. Superannuation at 14.5% is added, then 15% deducted for vicissitudes making a total of about $726,355.
The Insurer submits that no expert report has the correct history of the Claimant’s employment, several contradictions and inconsistencies were noted including his bank accounts as well as his employment and therefore his evidence is just not credible. The Insurer notes the report of the Vocational Capacity Centre that the Claimant could return to work and that in fact after the incident in November 2022 he continued to work for a further 2 months before handing in his “keys”.
Ultimately the Insurer submitted that the Claimant has capacity to return to work and in fact that he will do it.
In particular I note the conclusion of Neuropsychologist Dr Batchelor qualified jointly by the parties who reported that the Claimant was “in all probability fit to return to employment for which he is qualified by virtue of training and experience. In terms of his cognitive functioning, any current inability to work is most likely secondary to psychological disorder”.
I note the conclusion of Dr Batchelor is also based on the fact that Neuropsychologist Tania Kerr had assessed the Claimant 4 years earlier and had identified a number of cognitive difficulties such as bad mood swings, short temper, poor short-term memory, and frequent migraines. Dr Batchelor reported that the Claimant had scored significantly below the level reported in May 2018 and those declines could not be explained by reference to moderate traumatic brain injury which she was prepared to diagnose as resulting from the accident. Dr Batchelor reported that cognitive deficits resulting from a traumatic brain injury would be most pronounced in the acute post-traumatic period and will gradually resolve, even if incompletely, over time.
The Claimant’s subjective responses during the assessment were suggestive of depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress symptomology which was endorsed by Dr Whetton and Dr Bertucen.
I note that the Insurer submits that this diagnosis is reliant on an accurate history being provided by the Claimant and his wife. It is the Insurer’s case that the evidence of the Claimant and his wife is unreliable which therefore impacts the ability of the assessment.
I agree that the evidence of the Claimant and his wife cannot be relied upon. Under cross-examination Mrs Pearson also gave evidence which I did not find to be credible. However, I do not think that their evidence affects the validity of Dr Batchelor’s assessment or indeed anybody else’s.
The opinion of Dr Batchelor and indeed all other experts relied on objective evidence and little on or no regard was given to the histories taken.
The Insurer’s written submissions detail with particularity the histories of the Claimant not returning to work or returning to work on limited duties (appointments at which his wife was present) was not correct and did not accord with payslips provided by Seitaridis.
I agree that Mr and Mrs Pearson attempted to deceive various experts on Mr Pearson’s return to work.
Mr Pearson has few other interests. He does maintain his other cars and I presume those of his relatives. Without that small interest it seems to me that he is bored and restless. He apparently spends his time sleeping or watching the TV from the couch. His enjoyment in life mostly came out of being gainfully employed, which I respect.
The Insurer submits that I should allow only a buffer claim of $300,000 to which they concede he is entitled by way of loss of earning capacity.
In my assessment the Claimant will attempt to return to some form of paid employment. On the open labour market, he would be virtually unemployable. His friend Mr Seitaridis has since sold his business and therefore that friendly option of employment is no longer available to him.
It seems to me that while he would get a lot of satisfaction of returning to some form of paid employment it would be unsafe for him to do so both physically and psychologically.
There are a number of ways in which I can approach that assessment including allowing a buffer claim of $600,000 or allowing a deduction for vicissitudes at 30%. The result is the same.
PAST TREATMENT EXPENSES
The parties agree that past treatment expenses paid by the Workers Compensation Insurer was $215,552.18. This amount has been paid by the Insurer who now seeks a credit for that sum. In addition the claimant seeks an agreed sum of $3,642.36 for pharmaceuticals, making an agreed sum of $219,194.54.
FUTURE TREATMENT EXPENSES
The Claimant submits he is currently on various prescription medications including:
·Saxenda EpiPen $100 per week
·Antidepressant medication $20 per week
·Tamate $7.25 per week
·Celebrex $13.50 per week
To obtain these prescriptions and manage his symptoms generally the Claimant visits his general practitioner on a monthly basis at a cost of approximately $30 per week.
The Claimant submits that he will have to attend upon his GP and take Tamate and Celebrex and antidepressant prescription medication for the rest of his life.
General Practitioner attendances plus prescription medications (not including Saxenda EpiPen) comes to $70.75 per week which using the 5% multiplier for life expectancy (822) comes to
$58,156
Non-recurrent medical expenses are listed as the following:
Saxenda EpiPen for a further 12 months
$5,200
Psychologist to treat chronic PTSD and depression bi-weekly attendances for 2 years and monthly attendances for a further 3 years at a cost of $250 per visit
$22,000
At least one revisional knee replacement procedure at a cost of $85,000 deferred for 15 years on the 5% deferred tables comes to
$40,885
Total future medical expenses
$126,241
The Insurer in written submissions suggests a figure of $50,000. In oral submissions the Insurer submits psychological/psychiatric treatment in the future was appropriate.
I accept the Claimant’s submissions but deduct 15% for vicissitudes on the basis that the Claimant may not maintain his psychological treatment and some of his other treatment. I therefore allow $107,500.
PAST CARE
The Claimant submitted that the Claimant’s wife Sharon Pearson provided the following gratuitous care:
Task
Time for activities
Hours per week
Cooking and cleaning up
30 minutes per day
3.5
Housework (cleaning, vacuuming, sweeping)
1 hour per week
1
Mowing, edging and gardening
2.5 hours per fortnight
1.25
Grocery shopping
1 hour per week
1
Home maintenance
2 hour per week
1
Car cleaning
1 hour per week
1
Driving
3 hours per week
3
Total
11.75
The Claimant submits that after he regained his car licence in 2018, he no longer needed Sharon to drive him to and from medical appointments. His need for care from Sharon therefore reduced to 8.75 hours per week which continues up until todays date and into the future.
The evidence at the Hearing was that Sharon had always completed the cooking and cleaning up and housework which therefore reduced the gratuitous care by 4.5 hours per week.
I don’t know on what basis the Claimant lost his car licence and was unable to drive. As he was not at fault in the subject accident then I presume he did not lose his licence because of that but may have lost his licence because of his injuries in which case he would be entitled to claim. As I have no evidence either way it seems to me therefore that in line with the Insurer’s submission, although the Claimant did require care, particularly immediately after the accident and at times of the various surgeries, at all times it fell below the threshold. Averaging the rehabilitation over 12 months covering the accident and the surgeries and rehabilitation at 6 hours per week at $30ph comes to (52x6x30) $9,360.
FUTURE CARE
The Claimant maintains a claim of 6.75 hours per week for the balance of his life.
The Insurer submits the Claimant is not entitled.
There was evidence about the Claimant’s need for mowing and gardening assistance. He and Mrs Pearson currently live on a rental property of some acreage which requires mowing and which he would have difficulty doing owing to his physical injuries. He admitted that if he had the benefit of a ride-on mower that he could complete the gardening.
The Claimant claims $130 per week being the cost of one of his son’s completing the mowing for him. That would suggest to me about 3 hours average per week, over the seasons.
The Claimant currently lives in a remote village called Saltash NSW which is close to Medowie.
Using the suggested multiplier of 822 at $130 per week comes to a sum of about $106,860.
It seems to me that it is also possible that some of the acreage could be slashed rather than mown but there is no evidence either way. Nor is there any evidence of the cost of a ride-on mower but my research suggests that it is somewhere between $7,000 and $20,000.
The Insurer suggests that I should not allow anything for future care given that he could do the mowing with a ride-on.
I am not sure that the Claimant could always ride a ride-on lawnmower and the Insurer’s suggestion that I should allow the cost of a ride-one mower I believe was said tongue in cheek.
In all of the circumstances I allow $50,000 for future care.
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES SUMMARY
I assess the claim as follows on the findings set out above:
Non-Economic Loss $450,000
Economic losses
·Past loss of earnings (incl. superannuation and Fox v Wood) $314,739
·Future loss of earnings (incl. superannuation) $600,000
·Past treatment (incl. s 83 payments) $225,373.98
·Future treatment $107,500
·Past gratuitous care $9,360
·Future gratuitous care $50,000
TOTAL DAMAGES ASSESSED $1,750,793.54
The claimant’s economic losses are to be reduced by and the insurer is to have credit for the following payments in accordance with s 130:
·Section 83 payments $215,552.18
COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
I assess the Claimant’s legal costs and disbursements in accordance with s 149 and 150 of the Act and the Motor Accidents Compensation Regulation 2015 in accordance with the attached sheet as agreed between the parties.
0
0
0