Wang v AAI Limited t/as GIO - [2022] NSWPICMP 314

DETERMINATION OF REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	Wang v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2022] NSWPICMP 314
CLAIMANT:	Huaiqiang Wang
INSURER:	AAI Limited trading as GIO
REVIEW PANEL:	Member Susan McTegg Medical Assessor Shane Moloney Medical Assessor Geoffrey Stubbs
DATE OF DECISION:	1 August 2022
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS – Rear end collision; whole person impairment; cervical spine; thoracic spine; shoulder injury; soft tissue injury; medical review panel; causation; Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (1999 Act); the claimant suffered injury in a rear end collision on 24 March 2017; the dispute related to the assessment of permanent impairment under the 1999 Act; assessment of injury to cervical spine; thoracic spine and right shoulder; question of causation of shoulder injury; Held — cervical spine soft tissue injury; assessed as diagnosis-related estimate (DRE) cervicothoracic category 1 resulting in 0% whole person impairment; thoracic spine soft tissue injury; assessed as DRE lumbosacral category 1 resulting in 0% whole person impairment; Panel not satisfied right shoulder injury causally related to accident; lack of complaint of shoulder injury; no restriction of range of movement recorded by medico-legal specialists in the 12 months post-accident.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	*Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* Review Panel Certificate issued under Part 3.4 of the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 following a review under s 63 as to whether the degree of permanent impairment of the injured person as a result of the injury caused by the motor accident is greater than 10%. The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Woo dated 11 December 2021 and issues a new certificate determining that the following injuries were caused by the motor accident and do not give rise to a whole person impairment which is greater than 10%: cervical spine soft tissue injury; and1. thoracic spine soft tissue injury2. The Panel determines that the following injury was not caused by the motor accident: right shoulder soft tissue injury.1.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

Mr Huaiqiang Wang (the claimant) was driving his Toyota Yaris to work on 24 March 2017. He stopped his vehicle at a red light when it was rear-ended by a Lexus SUV (the accident). Mr Wang was holding the steering wheel with his right hand at the time. He felt a jerking movement to his neck and torso and his neck hit the headrest. Mr Wang exchanged details with the driver of the other car before continuing his journey to work.
Mr Wang asserts he sustained injury to his neck, mid back and right shoulder in the accident.
AAI Limited trading as GIO (the insurer) is the relevant insurer with liability to pay any damages to Mr Wang under the Motor Accident Compensation Act, 1999 (MAC Act).
This dispute is in relation to whether the degree of permanent impairment sustained by Mr Wang as a result of the injury caused by the accident is greater than 10%. This constitutes a medical dispute within the meaning of the MAC Act.[1]
[1] Sections 57 and 58 of the MAC Act.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION UNDER REVIEW

Medical Assessor…

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 Wang v AAI Limited t/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: [2022] NSWPICMP 314
Decision Date: 1 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wang v AAI Limited t/as GIO, the claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a rear end collision on 24 March 2017. The primary dispute centred on the assessment of permanent impairment under the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (1999 Act), specifically regarding the claimant's injuries to the cervical spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. The claimant argued that the injuries were causally related to the accident, while the insurer contested the causation and extent of the injuries. The matter was heard by the Motor Accident Authority (MAA) which ultimately referred the dispute to a Medical Review Panel (MRP) for evaluation.

The key legal issues before the court involved the determination of the whole person impairment resulting from the claimant's injuries, the causation of the right shoulder injury, and the applicability of the 1999 Act provisions in assessing the impairments. The court had to decide whether the injuries sustained by the claimant were indeed caused by the accident and, if so, what percentage of whole person impairment, if any, was attributable to those injuries.

The MRP found that the claimant's cervical spine soft tissue injury was assessed as a diagnosis-related estimate (DRE) cervicothoracic category 1, resulting in 0% whole person impairment. Similarly, the thoracic spine soft tissue injury was assessed as DRE lumbosacral category 1, also resulting in 0% whole person impairment. Regarding the right shoulder injury, the Panel concluded that it was not causally related to the accident, noting the lack of complaint of shoulder injury and the absence of recorded restrictions of range of movement by the medico-legal specialists in the 12 months following the accident. The court upheld the findings of the MRP, affirming that the claimant was not entitled to compensation for the right shoulder injury.

In conclusion, the court upheld the MRP's assessment of the claimant's injuries, finding no whole person impairment attributable to the cervical or thoracic spine injuries and rejecting the causation of the right shoulder injury. Consequently, the claimant's claim for compensation for the right shoulder injury was dismissed.

Orders