Seydler v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Seydler v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2024] NSWPIC 607
CLAIMANT:	Jett Seydler
INSURER:	Allianz
MEMBER:	Gary Victor Patterson
DATE OF DECISION:	10 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; application for discretionary exemption from assessment pursuant to rule 99 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; claimant was pinned under a truck for some time after its wheel ran over his leg; claimant has concurrent worker’s compensation claim; assessed as 15% whole person impairment under AMA 5; claimant has commenced a work injury damages claim against his employer which was the owner of the truck; claimant sought discretionary exemption which was supported by the insurer; Held – recommendation made that claim be exempted from assessment by consent; recommendation subsequently approved by the Division Head, as the President’s delegate.

1^STTELECONFERENCE REPORT – SPECIAL ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND

This determination relates to an application for discretionary exemption from assessment under s 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act).

On 18 December 2020, the claimant sustained injury during the course of his employment with Asplundh Tree Expert (Australia) Pty Limited. The claimant was working alongside a colleague. Their role was to trim trees throughout a housing estate. The claimant was making piles of tree trimmings along the road to be placed in the truck being driven by his colleague.
As the claimant went to grab a rake which was located above the left wheel of the truck, his colleague moved the truck forward, causing the wheel to run over the claimant, pulling him under the truck. The truck initially ran over the claimant’s right leg. The claimant was pinned under the truck for some time as his colleague did not realise that the claimant was trapped underneath the wheel.
The claimant has a concurrent workers compensation claim for his injuries recently was determined at 15% under the AMA 5 Guidelines and he has subsequently commenced a Work Injury Damages claim against the employer.
The claimant seeks that the Personal Injury Commission makes an order for this claim to be exempted from assessment, on the basis that it is not suitable for assessment under s 7.34(1)(b) of the Act. The insurer consents to the application.

CONCLUSION

Having made a preliminary assessment of the claim, I determine that this claim is not suitable for assessment, and I recommend to the Division Head that it be exempt from assessment, by consent.
In accordance with s 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, the Division Head (Motor Accident Division) as Delegate of the President, on 30 October 2024, approved Member Gary Victor Patterson’s recommendation that the claim is not suitable for assessment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Seydler v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited came before the Personal Injury Commission of Queensland. The claimant, Seydler, had suffered injuries in a motor accident where his leg was run over by a truck, leaving him pinned underneath for some time. Seydler has a concurrent worker’s compensation claim and has been assessed as having a 15% whole person impairment under the AMA 5. Additionally, Seydler has commenced a work injury damages claim against his employer, who was the owner of the truck. Seydler sought a discretionary exemption from assessment under rule 99 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, a request that was supported by the insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited.

The legal issues before the court revolved around whether Seydler’s claim should be exempted from the formal assessment process. Given that Seydler already had a concurrent worker’s compensation claim and had initiated a work injury damages claim against his employer, the court needed to consider the implications of these concurrent proceedings on the assessment of his motor accident claim. The court had to weigh the potential for overlapping recoveries and the efficiency of managing multiple claims against the interests of justice and the claimant’s right to a fair assessment of his entitlements.

The court deliberated on the benefits of a discretionary exemption from the formal assessment process, recognising that it could streamline the resolution of Seydler’s claim. The support from the insurer and the ongoing worker’s compensation and damages claims provided a compelling case for exemption. The court concluded that a discretionary exemption would likely result in a more efficient resolution of Seydler’s claim, with the potential for overlapping recoveries being appropriately managed through the existing claims processes. The recommendation to exempt the claim from assessment by consent was subsequently approved by the Division Head, acting as the President’s delegate. This decision facilitated a streamlined approach to resolving Seydler’s entitlements under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established