Walters v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Walters v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 543
CLAIMANT:	Mikayla Walters
INSURER:	NRMA
MEMBER:	David Ford
DATE OF DECISION:	1 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; claims assessment dispute about the amount of damages to be paid to the claimant under section 7.36(3) and (4); claimant was the driver of a motor vehicle involved in a collision at an intersection with the insured vehicle; insurer admitted liability and no allegation of contributory negligence; claimant suffered severe injuries to her lumbar spine and psychological injuries being a major depressive disorder; insurer conceded entitlement to non-economic loss; claimant is 23 years of age at the time of assessment; at the date of the accident claimant was working in hospitality but intended to commence a veterinary nurse course; because of her injuries she had to abandon her studies; since the accident claimant has not been able to engage in either full-time or part-time employment; claim for non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future superannuation; Held – claimant is entitled to damages for non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future superannuation.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	CERTIFICATE Issued under s 7.36(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 Assessment of claim for damages made in accordance with s 7.36 of the Act 1. On the issue of liability for the claim the NRMA’s insured owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached that duty of care and the claimant sustained injury, loss and damage as a result of that breach of duty. 2. The amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim is $1,264,399 which includes the statutory benefits paid by the insurer. As of 3 October 2024, such benefits total $116,086.18. 3. The amount of the claimant’s costs taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and the Motor Accidents Injuries Regulation 2017 are the regulated costs.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

On 23 October 2020 at approximately 1.30am, the claimant was driving towards the intersection of Ward Street and Hood Street at Yagoona. The motor vehicle being driven by the insured driver, failed to give way at a giveaway sign and collided with the claimant’s vehicle, which left the roadway and collided with a power pole.
The fire brigade, ambulance and police attended the scene of the accident. She was transported by ambulance to Liverpool Hospital, where she was admitted, and subsequently discharged on 27 October 2020.
As a consequence of the accident, she sustained the following injuries:
(a)    displaced L3 transverse process fracture;
(b)    nondisplaced right L4 transverse process fracture;
(c)    depression;
(d)    anxiety, and
(e)    post-traumatic stress disorder.
At the time of the accident, the claimant was working as a food beverage, team leader at Bungalow 8 in Darling Harbour. It is submitted at the time of the accident she was training internally to become a manager. At the same time, she was studying to become a veterinary nurse, part time through TAFE NSW. She intended to obtain certificate 11 in animal studies to prepare herself to commence a veterinary nurse course. She was due to complete the TAFE course in December 2020, and was also intending to apply to her local vet for a job and continue with the course. Because of the injuries sustained in the subject accident, she was unable to complete the course.
Since the accident she has not been able to engage in either full time or part time employment. She did attempt to re-enter the workforce as a support worker for the elderly. The employer was Catholic Health Care, and she commenced this employment on
19 October 2023. Unfortunately, only after two shifts, she resigned from this employment as she was unable to continue her duties due to both physical and psychological injuries.
It is submitted the claimant was earning on average $586 net per week. But for the accident, she would have continued working part time and earned that amount until she completed her studies in December 2020. She was also transitioning into a managerial role with her employer at Bungalow 8. It was her intention in the long term to work as a veterinary nurse. She was born in 2001 and she is presently 23 years of age. The insurer conceded she is entitled to damages for non-economic loss.
The insurer wholly admitted liability by letter dated 15 September 2022 and accordingly the claim comes before me solely to assess damages.

Outline issues in dispute

The following issues have arisen in this matter:
(a)    non-economic loss;
(b)    past economic loss;
(c)    future economic loss;
(d)    past and future superannuation, and
(e)    Fox v Wood.
The main issues requiring my determination are as follows:
(a)    what is the entitlement to damages for non-economic loss;
(b)    to what extent if at all, have the claimant’s injuries and ongoing disabilities resulted in the claimant suffering a diminution in her ability to earn an income from the date of the accident up until the present time and for the remainder of her working life, and
(c)    what is the entitlement to damages which flow from the findings on the above issues.

Documents considered

I have considered the documents provided in the application and the reply and any further information provided by the parties.

Submissions made by the claimant

At the general assessment conference, the claimant stated her pain affects her in every way. When moving around her house, she does so in a restricted manner and only moves with caution. Mentally, she just wants to be isolated. She was keen to obtain employment with Border Force, which involved working with animals, however, the duties required of her in such employment was beyond her capabilities because of her injuries and continuing disabilities. She felt psychologically, she was getting worse, but she is trying to cope with her post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
When questioned by counsel for the insurer, she said she had more bad days than good. She intended to fast track the course to become a veterinary nurse. She further stated, in her opinion, she would have become a team leader at Bungalow 8, which would involve a higher rate of pay. She has wanted to obtain some form of employment post-accident and was keen to obtain employment with Border Force as this work was of interest to her, since it involved animals.
I refer to the statement of the claimant dated 30 July 2024 and I refer to the following paragraphs:
“13 By the time of the accident, I was in the process of transitioning into managerial duties. This meant I began to do things like managing team members, rosters, enforcing RSA, basic training and ensuring the venue was presentable. It was a nice feeling to know that I was being recognised for my hard work and moving up in the company. I believe the manager role would have been a salary position which would have given me more financial security.
15 At the same time, I was studying for an Animal Studies Certificate 11 at TAFE. It was a 6-month fast track course which was supposed to prepare me for a Vet Nursing Course through TAFE NSW. This would have enabled me to obtain work experience in a clinic. I was in the process of arranging a job, as I had roughly one month left of my 6-month course at the time the subject accident occurred.
16, At TAFE, I was learning how to care for all kinds of animals including birds, fish, cats dogs and reptiles. I was also being trained in infectious diseases, PPE, first aid, restraining animals and basic grooming. Once I had moved into the Vet Nursing Course, I would have started working almost immediately in clinic placements to gain some hands-on experience. I believe the vet nursing course would have taken approximately18-36 months. It was my intention to supplement my income by doing some bar work on the weekends and evenings while I was studying and doing my placement.
17 A vet nurse position is very physically demanding. I had to be able to restrain big animals but also bend over and get into kennels to clean them out. Although it was a lot of hard work, I looked forward to getting my qualifications and being out in clinic earning a steady income. I also would have been able to obtain permanent employment in this role with the opportunity I've been promoted to a senior veterinary nurse as I gain more experience. It was my intention to work full time once I had completed the course, I also had an interest in a border force position as I have a love and passion for animals.
20.. Since the accident, I have not returned to work in my pre-accident capacity. This is due to my severe psychological and physical symptoms. I suffer from constant lower back pain that travels down my back and into my glutes. I attempted to obtain employment as a community worker with Catholic Care towards the end of 2023. I had to leave this position after two shifts, as I was not able to handle going back to work after suffering from another sciatica flare up and the impact on my mental health. They informed me they couldn't continue to employ me if I had ongoing medical issues. I was incredibly disheartened that I could not return to work, and I had disclosed my medical issues when I applied for the role. The role required me to provide assistance to the elderly and I only considered the position as there was no heavy lifting, Aside from these two shifts, I have not worked since the accident
24/. My deteriorating mental health has also let to a strained relationship with my family and my partner, and I separated after two months after the accident. I get irritated, snappy, and socially isolate so it makes it impossible to connect with my friends and family. I suffer from nightmares and get flashbacks, so I am constantly fatigued. I suffer from frequent panic attacks and suicidal ideations. I have also self-harmed since the accident when I've been in low points.
27. My inability to return to my working life before the accident also stems from my psychological impediments. I am unable to handle any pressure or meet high expectations because I am so anxious. Thinking about disappointing others is very stressful and I am terrified of failure. Since the accident. I disassociate in high stress environments which makes it impossible to retain information, learn and concentrate.
28. I hope I will be able to eventually return to some sort of work, but I cannot even imagine how I can do that or what options I have. This is very upsetting for me as I feel I have had my future ripped away from me so unfairly and I always loved going to work.
31. My mental health has not improved since the accident to the point that I had to be admitted as an inpatient in March 2024 at Wollongong Private Hospital for 3 to 4 weeks. My doctors encouraged me to be admitted due to my depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts as I was losing my ability to cope with everyday tasks. I hit rock bottom, struggled to get out of bed every day, and my panic attacks became completely debilitating. My admission made me feel even more isolated as it is far from home, and I don't have support.”
I refer to the report of Dr Fernando, consultant physician in rehabilitation medicine, dated
14 February 2022. On Page 3 of his report, under the heading” Summary”, I note the following,
“Mikayla is a previously fit and healthy 20 year old female who is experiencing chronic mechanical and neuropathic lower back pain with bilateral lower limb radiculopathy, right more than left ,secondary to L5/S1 disc bulge with central canal narrowing and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis following a motor vehicle accident in October 2020 .She remains neurologically intact ,however has significant pain related disability and reduction in quality of life following the motor vehicle accident with loss of employment, vocational studies and physical capacity.
She would benefit from a multidisciplinary pain programme in the Sydney Pain Management Centre to optimise pain pharmacotherapy, counselling for return to work, return to study and improved endurance with driving and daily activities.”
I refer to the report of Dr James Yu, consultant anaesthetist and interventional pain specialist, dated 13 July 2021. On page 1 of his report, he states as follows:
“Thank you for referring Mikayla, a 20-year-old lady who presented with widespread body pain, including thoracic back pain, lower back pain, neck pain, bilateral gluteal pain and bilateral leg pain since she had a motor vehicle accident on 23 October 2020. She described her bilateral leg pain as a sharp pain associated with pins and needles sensation which goes down to her feet. Her pain is worse with bending forward and sitting or standing for a prolonged period of time. She rates her pain at 6-10/10.”
I refer to the report of Deborah Martin-Smith, clinical psychologist, dated 26 October 2021. She states the following on page 1 of her report:
“Mikayla also has a lot of problems with driving, being driven and seeing cars being driven by others. She has lost confidence over the last 12 months since the accident. She becomes extremely anxious at intersections, similar to the one she had the motor vehicle accident and either has a flashback or panic attack and has to stop before she can continue. Mikayla has a recurrent dream of a motor vehicle slamming into her. Obviously, Mikayla has sustained huge injuries on every level of her life. She is not as confident as she used to be, is nervous when she drives and every time she leaves the house she believes she will not return.”
The solicitor for the claimant arranged for her to be examined on a medico legal basis by
Dr Richa Rastogi, consultant psychiatrist, and I refer to her report 18 October 2022. On page 7 of her report, she opines the claimant qualifies for DSM 5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder. She noted the following reported conditions:
“1.     Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report.
2.     Markedly diminished interest or pleasure at all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day
3.     Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day.
4.     Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day
5.     Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day
6.     Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day
7.     Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt
8.     Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day.
9.     Recurrent thoughts of death recurrent suicidal ideations without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide.”
Dr Rastogi noted she had received counselling with partial response to treatment. She was of the opinion the claimant had a guarded prognosis. She is still debilitated by anxiety, cognitive difficulties, and avoidance, impacting her functioning and inability to resume pre-injury duties. On page 10 of her report, she states the following:
“Your client has the capacity to work in reduced capacity, part time, in administrative duties. She displays impaired concentration, lack of motivation, avoidance, poor coping and depressive cognitions. The fear and avoidance are impeding on her recovery and functioning She is struggling to cut with basic daily pressures subsequently to impairments associated with motor vehicle accident.
Your client will experience a reduction in work capacity in a part time capacity with restrictions and financial disadvantage. She will be able to work in admin duties in a step-down role in the foreseeable future.
She cannot work in her employment of choice due to injuries from the motor accident.”
She was also seen on a medico legal basis by Dr Drew Dixon, and I refer to his report dated 28 November 2022. On page 5 of his report, he opines the following:
“She has had economic loss in that she has been unable to work since the accident. She is unlikely to be able to do tasks which involve prolonged standing and walking, recurrent bending and shopping, heavy lifting, or carrying, for the foreseeable future and would have trouble doing a desk job without an ergonomic chair and workstation and would need frequent work breaks. She is only certified fit for sedentary work at present 4 hours twice a week. This is not really a realistic work option on the open labour market.”
I refer to the report of Dr Uthum Dias, consultant occupational physician, dated
1 November 2022. He has provided a comprehensive report. He has noted her current symptoms on page 7 of his report. He carried out a physical examination of the claimant and provided his diagnosis on page 11 as follows,
“Miss Walters suffers from chronic severe right- sided lumbar spine pain, stiffness and discomfort with associated non-specific bilateral lower limb sensory symptomology, secondary to an acute displaced right L3 transverse process fracture, and acute non-displaced right L4 transverse process fracture and an acute L5-S1 disc protrusion.
Miss Walters suffers from chronic non-specific thoracic spine pain, stiffness, and discomfort secondary to an acute musculoligamentous strain.”
Dr Dias is of the opinion he is now somewhat doubtful her symptoms and disabilities associated with her injuries will ever resolve to the point where she is pain free or free from functional compromise on a day-to-day basis in the foreseeable future. On page 15 of his report, he notes the many restrictions pertaining to her compensable physical injuries such as avoiding lifting, pulling and pushing, walking, standing, sitting, bending and twisting of the lower back/torso and driving for limited periods only.

Submissions made by the insurer

The insurer arranged for the claimant to be examined on a medico legal basis by Dr Michael Prior, psychiatrist, and I refer to his report dated 6 March 2023. He has provided a comprehensive report and commencing on page 7 under the heading “Psychiatric Symptomatology” he has obtained extensive details regarding the claimant’s characteristic and representative psychiatric symptomology as at the date of her examination with him. I note the following on page 9 of his report:
“Following the motor vehicle accident in October 2020, she reported that she has not returned to her index employment in any capacity or done alternative work, voluntary work educational or training courses or job seeking.
When asked what has prevented her return to any form of work or study or retraining, re skilling or re-education since the accident. she stated ‘my mental health basically’. She stated ‘It's my depression and lack of motivation in poor concentration. I can't cope with stress anymore. I can't cope with responsibility’ and she has not been able to return to study and finish her course for the same reasons.
When asked about her future work plans, she stated ‘I don't have any at the moment. I can't see any light at the end of that tunnel. The treatments I've had to date haven't really been helpful’.”
I further note on page 16 of his report, he states the following:
“She displayed pain behaviour, shifting uncomfortably in her chair and standing on several occasions. When asked to write her pain perception on a scale where zero is no pain, and 10 is the maximum pain imaginable, Miss Walters rated it as 9 /10.”
On page 20 of his report, he also states as follows,
“It is difficult to estimate ahead of time when her condition will stabilise. This, in my opinion, will only occur after she has been referred to a treating psychiatrist, has had more aggressive and appropriate psychopharmacological therapy and has had more treatment with trauma- informed therapy by her treating psychologist. A rough estimate would be after she has started what I deemed to be appropriate treatment. It would require an extra 8 months or so to stabilise.”

The insurer also arranged for her to be examined by Dr Frank Machart and I refer to his report dated 3 January 2023. I note the following on page 4 of his report:
“I did not find inconsistency. The longevity of incapacity as self-reported did not match with the severity of the pathology, specifically noting alleged inability to study or participate in any work or housework. This is not so much an inconsistency as suspected impact from psychological issues, which may be complicating the physical presentation, and resulted in the chronic pain syndrome.”
On page 5 of his report, he states the following, as to whether treatment has been effective,
“It has not been effective. She reported there was no benefit. The reasons I suspect is chronic pain impacted on by psychological issues which complicate the physical presentation.
The prognosis is for reaching reasonable community activities. The medical status is stable and not resolved. It is difficult to predict improvement in presence of the cycle of psychological issues in play.”
The insurer obtained a report from Dr Peter Bentivoglio, neurosurgeon, which is dated
29 November 2022. I note the following on page 6:
“One would certainly suspect that she should be able to get back to appropriate work in the future. This may be only light duties or office-based work, but she should be able to get back to appropriate work. Undoubtedly, the reduction in the fitness is related to the accident that she had and the discogenic low back pain.”
The insurer also obtain report from Dr Ashwinder Anand, consultant psychiatrist, which is dated 29 April 2024. He obtained a detailed history from her, and I note the following on page 5 of his report:
“From a premorbid perspective she described herself as being outgoing and an individual who loved life and was determined to be successful and have nice things, but now she is a shell of a person that she once was.
She stated that ‘I can't go back to work because I'm depressed 24/7.’ She has been experiencing anxiety, especially social anxiety. She stated ‘Now it's difficult to communicate with people. I’ve got no motivation, and I am not spontaneous like I was before.’ From a medication perspective, she is currently medicated on Valdoxan, Celebrex, Endone, on pm basis, Panadeine Forte, Panadol Osteo.”
I refer to page 9 of his report where he states the following regarding his prognosis:
“I would regard the prognosis of Miss Walters’ recovery as most guarded given the ongoing nature of her symptoms. She has not demonstrated any improvement overall regarding her psychological treatment. Her current treatment regime is not reducing her symptoms.
I am unable to advise you what appropriate time frame for her recovery and resolution of her psychological condition would be given the protracted nature of her symptoms that have been ongoing for some time.”
On page 14 he opines the following,
“Considering the ongoing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and significant impact of symptoms of psychological disorder on her personal, interpersonal social, family, recreational and vocational functioning, coupled with her inability to focus ,findings on mental state examination during the assessment and the potent risk of further worsening of psychological symptoms that might cause serious risk to her safety, on the balance of probabilities, in my professional opinion, I believe she has nil current capacity to work in her pre injury role or any other role on a part time or full time basis with pre- injury employer or any other employer.”

REASONS

Non-economic loss

The claimant is entitled to damages for non-economic loss. The solicitor for the claimant has submitted a sum of $400,000 for such damages. In response, the insurer has submitted a sum of $280,000 to be appropriate for non-economic loss. In determining the appropriate amount to be awarded to the claimant I was assisted, by the reports of Dr Rastogi, Dr Dixon Dr Dias and Dr Anand referred to above. She is a young woman who has sustained physical and psychological injuries which are significant and clearly, she is continually upset with regard to her situation on a continual daily basis. I was assisted by her comprehensive statement referred to in paragraph 13 above and I find the claimant was both honest and forthright when questioned by both counsel at the general assessment conference.
I accept the disabilities of which she complains arising from her injuries and I further accept, daily, she is in distress and discomfort and suffers as such continually. I am also mindful of the opinion expressed by Dr Dixon in his report, where he opines, she is an appropriate candidate for anterior inter body fusion. I note Dr Anand is not optimistic she will have a gradual recovery from her psychological injuries and in fact, he regarded the prognosis as being “most guarded”.
I am also concerned regarding her admission as an inpatient in March 2024 to the Wollongong Private Hospital, and I hope, with ongoing treatment from a psychiatrist and a psychologist, there will be no repetition of the need for such admission in the future.
I therefore consider an appropriate allowance for non-economic loss, having regard to her age and her injuries and disabilities, is the sum of $375,000.

Past loss of earnings

I was assisted by the opinions expressed by Dr Dias, Dr Dixon, and Dr Anand regarding the claimant’s ability to return to the workforce. I was also assisted by the opinion of Dr Peter Bentivoglio referred to in paragraph 25 above. I do, however, note the opinion expressed by Dr Machart in paragraph 24 above, where he states the longevity of incapacity as self-reported, did not match with the severity of the pathology, specifically noting alleged inability to study or participate in any work or housework. The accident caused a significant interruption regarding her ability to work, study, and pursue her personal goals regarding her future career. The timing of the accident could not have been any worse as far as the disruption of her plans and aspirations were concerned.
I accept since the accident and up until the present time, she has been unable to engage in either full time or part time employment. She has made an attempt to obtain part time employment, with Catholic Health Care, but was incapable of doing so because of her injuries and ongoing disabilities. Regarding the calculation of past economic loss, I do not accept the submission by the solicitor for the claimant I should make an allowance based upon the sum of $1,285 which is the average weekly earnings of females as per Australian Bureau of statistics data.
The insurer has proposed an allowance of $650 net per week from the date of the accident up until the present time. Whilst this is a reasonable compromise, I consider it more appropriate to allow a sum of $800 net per week from the date of the accident up until
23 October 2024, which is a period of 208 weeks. This results in a calculation of $166,400.
Therefore, the total amount to be awarded for past loss of earnings is the sum of $166,400.
The insurer has made statutory payments totalling $116,086.18 as at 3 October 2024.

Past superannuation

I accept the submission made by the solicitors for the claimant, that I should allow 11% on the net amount allowed for past loss of earnings, which results in a calculation of $18,304 for past superannuation.

Future loss of earnings

The claimant is presently 23 years of age and has an expected working life until the age of 67 years. I find the most likely future circumstance for the claimant that she will continue to suffer from her ongoing disabilities, both physical and psychological, which will cause her to suffer a diminution in her earning capacity for the remainder of her working life. She will always be at risk on the open labour market, and I find it will be difficult for her to find suitable light duty work, even after she has undergone further rehabilitation and appropriate retraining.
I find the claimant is well motivated and will use her best endeavours to find suitable light duty employment. However, I do not accept the submission by the solicitor for the claimant I should compensate her based on total incapacity. I accept, but for the accident, the claimant may well have earned salary increases in the future, however I do not accept the submission I should allow a sum of $1,285 net per week for the remainder of her working life.
In making an allowance for future economic loss, I was assisted to some extent, by the submission made by the insurer. Firstly, I accept the submission I should allow $950 net per week for a period of five years, which is calculated as follows:
(a) $950 x 231.5 (multiplier) less 15% for vicissitudes, results in a calculation of $186,936.
However, at the general assessment conference, I stated to counsel for the insurer, I was not prepared to accept the submission I should allow a buffer of $100,000 after the expiration of the five-year period. This is not an appropriate case to award a buffer. Counsel for the insurer then responded, if I was to be against him in relation to the primary submission of a buffer, then he submitted after the five-year period, I should award a 60% loss of income from the said sum of $950 net per week, which would result in an ongoing future loss of earning capacity of $570 net per week for the remainder of her working life.
Having regard to her injuries and ongoing disabilities, and furthermore, having regard to the opinions expressed Dr Dias in his report as regards loss of future earning capacity, I consider it appropriate to allow $700 net per week for the remainder of her working life. Therefore, the calculation future loss of earnings is as follows:
(a)    I allow $950 net per week for a period of five years which as stated above results in a calculation of $186,936;
(b)    it was agreed the anticipated retirement age for the claimant was 67 years. She is now 23 years of age. In accordance with actuarial calculations for a deferred period. I have calculated the following, and
(c)    $700 net per week x 909.9 x 0.784 less 15% for vicissitudes results in the calculation of $424,450.
Total amount awarded for future loss of earnings is the sum of $186,936 plus $424,450 results in a calculation of $611,386.

Future superannuation

In accordance with the agreement reached between the parties I allow 14.63% on the sum of $611,386 which results in an amount to be awarded for future superannuation in the sum of $89,446.

Fox v Wood HCA 148 CLR 438

The parties have agreed the amount to be awarded for Fox v Wood is the sum of $3,863.

Assessment of damages summary

Under sub-s 7.36 (1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act). I am required to make an assessment of the amount of damages for that liability that a court would be likely to award.
I assess the claim as follows on the findings set out above:
non-economic loss  $375,000
past loss of earnings  $166,400
past superannuation  $18,304
future loss of earnings  $611,386
Future Superannuation  $89,446
Fox v Wood  $3,863
total of economic losses and non-economic loss   $1,264,399
reduction for contributory negligence  Nil
TOTAL DAMMAGES ASSESSED  $1,264,399

Costs and disbursements

I assess the claimant's legal costs and disbursements in accordance with the MAI Act and the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 as scheduled fees and agreed disbursements.

CONCLUSION

On the issue of liability for the claim NRMA's insured owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached that duty of care and the claimant sustained injury, loss and damage as a result of that breach of duty.
I specify the amount of damages for this claim as $1,264,399 which includes the statutory benefits paid by the insurer.
The amount of the claimant’s costs, taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, is assessed in accordance with the MAI Act as the scheduled costs and agreed disbursements.

LEGISLATION

In making my decision I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:
(a) MAI Act;
(b) Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017;
(c) Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020;
(d) Motor Accident Guidelines 2017, and
(e) Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021.

[2024] NSWPIC 543

1 October 2024