Stanizzo v AAI Limited trading as GIO - [2021] NSWSC 1077

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Stanizzo v AAI Limited trading as GIO [2021] NSWSC 1077
Hearing dates: 25 August 2021
Decision date: 26 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.10(2), extend the time within which the plaintiff may file the summons to 16 July 2021.
(2)   Set aside the decision of the second defendant made on 20 April 2021.
(3)   Set aside the decision of the third defendant made on 8 September 2020.
(4)   Remit the matter to the second defendant for referral for assessment by a medical assessor other than the third defendant.
(5)   Make no order as to costs.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Decision of Medical Assessor and delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission of NSW — Whether Medical assessor considered and addressed claimant’s submissions and provided sufficient reasons — Submission regarding contribution of accident to condition of claimant and ongoing symptoms not addressed — Medical Assessor made finding contrary to claimant’s submissions and associated evidence without referring or apparently taking into account what claimant put to him — Medical Assessor’s reasons are insufficient — Decisions of Medical Assessor and President’s delegate must be set aside

Legislation Cited:
Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), ss 3.24, 7.17, 7.20, 7.23
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), r 59.10

Cases Cited:
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244; (2012) 61 MVR 443
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13; (2012) 60 MVR 194
Rodger v De Gelder (2011) 80 NSWLR 594; [2011] NSWCA 97
Rodger v De Gelder [2015] NSWCA 211; (2015) 71 MVR 514
Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Vincent Francis Stanizzo (Plaintiff)
AAI Limited trading as GIO (First Defendant)
The President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
Dr Raymond Wallace in his capacity as Medical Assessor appointed by the State Insurance Regulatory Authority under s 7.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Gumbert / M J Jones (Plaintiff)
Submitting appearances (Defendants)
Solicitors:
International Lawyers Co-operative (Plaintiff)
Hicksons (First Defendant)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/203855

Judgment

Introduction

By summons filed on 16 July 2021, the plaintiff, Vincent Stanizzo (the claimant), seeks relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) arising from decisions of the third defendant, Dr Wallace (the Medical Assessor), and of the second defendant, the President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (the President). The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended summons on 3 August 2021.
The application arises in the context of the claimant’s claim against the first defendant, AAI Limited trading as GIO (the Insurer), for the cost of medical treatment for injuries to his cervical spine, which he alleges…

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 Stanizzo v AAI Limited trading as GIO 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: [2021] NSWSC 1077
Decision Date: 26 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stanizzo v AAI Limited trading as GIO, the plaintiff, Mr. Stanizzo, sought judicial review of a decision made by a Medical Assessor and a delegate of the President of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the reasons provided for the assessment of Mr. Stanizzo's medical condition and the impact of a workplace accident on his health. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Medical Assessor had adequately considered and addressed Mr. Stanizzo's submissions and associated evidence, and whether the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor were sufficient to justify the findings made. The plaintiff argued that the assessor had failed to address a critical submission regarding the contribution of the accident to his condition and ongoing symptoms. Furthermore, it was contended that the Medical Assessor's findings were contrary to the submissions made by Mr. Stanizzo without proper consideration of the associated evidence.

In its judgment, the court found that the Medical Assessor had indeed failed to adequately address Mr. Stanizzo's submissions and evidence. The court held that the assessor had made findings contrary to what Mr. Stanizzo had put forward without referring to or apparently taking into account his submissions. The court also determined that the reasons provided by the Medical Assessor were insufficient. As a result, the decisions of the Medical Assessor and the President’s delegate were set aside. The court held that the assessor's failure to properly consider the submissions and evidence rendered the decisions flawed and not in accordance with legal standards.

The final orders of the court required the reconsideration of Mr. Stanizzo's case by a new Medical Assessor, ensuring that all relevant submissions and evidence were appropriately addressed and considered. The decisions of the previous assessor and delegate were quashed, and the matter was remitted for further consideration in light of the court’s findings.

Orders