QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Hanang
[2025] NSWPIC 226
•26 May 2025
| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Hanang [2025] NSWPIC 226 |
| CLAIMANT: | Reynaldo Hanang |
| INSURER: | QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited |
| MEMBER: | Michael Inglis |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 26 May 2025 |
CATCHWORDS: | MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; settlement approval under section 6.23; claimant self-represented; claimant suffered an undisplaced fracture through the upper sternum without haematoma; claimant made a substantial recovery within a reasonably short period; insurer assessed past economic loss at $9,000.00 including superannuation; allowed $1,081.00 for Fox v Wood and $11,200.00 as a buffer for potential future economic loss although such loss seemed unlikely; total settlement in the sum of $21,881.00 proposed; Held – settlement approved as just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely outcomes. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | CERTIFICATE 1. The proposed settlement in the sum of $21,881 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. The insurer is authorised to deduct the sum of $5,568.48 representing the amount of past weekly benefits paid. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
Reynaldo Hanang aged 34 was involved in a near head on collision on 13 May 2023 when a car ran a red light, hitting the front of his vehicle. Airbags were deployed and the claimant felt immediate chest pain. He was transported by ambulance to Blacktown Hospital where he had a CT scan of the brain and chest.
The CT scan revealed an undisplaced fracture through the upper sternum, but there was no associated haematoma or any other injuries identified.
Liability was admitted by the insurer. The proposed settlement is $21,881. The insurer seeks approval to deduct the sum of $5,568.48 representing the amount of past weekly benefits paid by the insurer.
The claimant is not legally represented and the settlement must be approved by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) pursuant to s 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Restrictions on the settlement of a claim for damages are found in s 6.23 of the MAI Act which is in the following terms:
“6.23 Restrictions on Settlement of Claim for Damages
(1) Repealed
(2) A claim for damages cannot be settled unless –
(a)The claimant is represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner and/or
(b)The proposed settlement is approved by the Commission.
(3) The Commission is not to approve the settlement of a claim unless satisfied that the settlement complies with any applicable requirements of or made under this act or the Motor Accidents Guidelines.”
Clause 7.37 of the Motor Accidents Guidelines states as follows:
“7.37 new under section 6.23(3) of the Act, before the Personal Injury Commission may approve the settlement of a claim for damages, it must be satisfied that:
(a) The proposed settlement satisfies the timing requirements in section 6.23(1) of the Act;
(b) The proposed semi indentation the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter assessed by the Commission, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claimant, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement;
(c) The claimant understands that they are entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner;
(d) The claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.”
Procedural Direction MA3 concerns the requirement for the Commission to approve the settlement of a claim for damages in circumstances where the claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner.
EVIDENCE
The documents lodged by the insurer included hospital clinical notes and reports of
Dr Seamus Dalton, specialist in rehabilitation medicine and Dr Charles H New, orthopaedic and spinal surgeon.
In his report of 5 June 2023, Dr Dalton recorded a history from the claimant that he had quite significant pain for the first week and was taking Endone for the first few days and then changed to Panadeine Forte but his pain gradually eased after about one and a half weeks. The last week he felt good enough to be able to return to work. He recorded further the claimant stating that he had been basically asymptomatic for the past eight days. He had been lifting his son weighing 13kg and had no pain whatsoever with daily activities. At that medical examination Dr Dalton provided the claimant with a certificate that he could return to work but on the proviso that initially he should limit his lifting to 10kg until he had had a trial of lifting so as to ensure that he was indeed asymptomatic.
As a result of the rate of recovery Dr Dalton opined that the claimant should make a full recovery, required no treatment or other intervention but should be on the lookout for any recurrence of pain or tenderness around the upper sternum.
Dr New reported on 18 February 2024 to the insurer’s claims officer.
At that time Dr New recorded a history that the claimant was able to lift weights if they were conveniently positioned and that any pain did not prevent him from walking any distance. He further recorded that there was no restriction with regard to sitting or standing or sleep disturbance.
Dr New's findings on examination were normal leaving the claimant with a resolved fracture of the sternum and occasional discomfort. He thought the long-term prognosis for full recovery was good.
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
At the settlement conference the claimant informed me that he had in fact made a very good recovery in terms set out in the reports of the medical practitioners. He had essentially returned to a normal life including his pre-accident work activity.
He was not undergoing any treatment. However, he was aware that if any further treatment was required in the future that he could make an application to the insurer for payment of the cost of such treatment which would be considered by the insurer on its merits.
The claimant confirmed that he was aware that he could have sought legal representation but declined to do so given the nature of the injuries that he suffered. He was aware that but for his remaining entitlements to payment for hospital and medical expenses, that if he accepted the proposed sum, it would be a full and final settlement of his entitlement to damages.
SUBMISSIONS
The insurer noted that the claimant was not entitled to damages for non-economic loss on the basis that Dr Charles New had assessed whole person impairment at 0%. The insurer made an allowance of $9,000 for past economic loss calculated as follows (four weeks by $600 plus superannuation of 11% equals $7,104). Added to this was further 10 weeks loss of superannuation at 11% at the rate of $156 totalling $1,731.60. Total allowance for economic loss $8,835.60 so rounded up to $9,000. The sum of $1,081 was allowed for Fox v Wood. The insurer allowed a further $11,200 representing a buffer for potential future economic loss plus superannuation at 12%. Total settlement $21,881. The insurer submitted that this was a settlement that was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It was further noted that it had been explained to the claimant that any Medicare payback did not form part of the damages claim and that as the claimant had not received income from Centrelink a clearance would not be required from that body.
CONSIDERATION
The proposed settlement reflects essentially an allowance for past and future economic loss in circumstances where the medical evidence does not indicate that the claimant is likely to suffer any future economic loss. The claimant says that he has made a very good recovery from what was initially a notoriously painful injury and this is supported by the medical evidence available.
I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by the Commission, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claimant.
I am satisfied that the claimant understands that he was entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner and does not wish to be represented. I am also satisfied that the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement sum.
Having considered all the material available, I am satisfied that the proposed settlement should be approved.
0
0
0