Court cases for personal injury and negligence
PIC decisions
PIC Money awarded
1. Green v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2022] NSWPIC 317
The claimant suffered injuries including PTSD and claimed damages for past and future economic loss.
Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2022.
Amount awarded: AUD 169,209.22 total.
Breakdown:
- Past economic loss: AUD 41,831.
- Future economic loss: AUD 130,000.
- Fox v Wood: AUD 696.
- Less weekly statutory payments: AUD 3,317.78.
- Non-economic loss: nil / no claim.
Key principle: A claimant may receive damages for economic loss where PTSD and other injuries affect work capacity and earning ability.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2022/317.html
2. BWH v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 337
The claimant suffered PTSD, a left ankle injury and a left knee injury after a motor accident. Medical Assessors certified that the claimant’s permanent impairment was not greater than 10%, with PTSD assessed at 5% WPI and the left ankle injury at 4% WPI. The settlement included allowances for past and future economic loss.
Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2024.
Amount awarded: AUD 250,000 total settlement, less AUD 2,422.87 for weekly compensation.
Breakdown:
- Past economic loss: unspecified.
- Future economic loss: unspecified.
- Non-economic loss: nil because there was no entitlement.
- Weekly compensation deduction: AUD 2,422.87.
- Costs: unspecified.
Key principle: A settlement may be approved where PTSD, physical impairment and economic loss are all relevant to the claimant’s damages.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2024/337.html
3. Dyer v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPIC 417
The claimant suffered serious injuries and ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder after a head-on collision. The claim was for non-economic loss only. The Commission assessed damages at AUD 300,000 plus costs.
Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2022.
Amount awarded: AUD 300,000 damages plus costs.
Breakdown:
- Non-economic loss: AUD 300,000.
- Costs: awarded, amount unspecified.
- Past economic loss: not claimed / not applicable.
- Future economic loss: not claimed / not applicable.
Key principle: PTSD can support a significant non-economic loss award where the psychological injury is ongoing and serious.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2022/417.html
4. Zhao v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 624
The claimant’s damages assessment included a buffer for past and future economic loss. The Commission assessed the economic loss buffer at AUD 150,000 and also assessed the claimant’s costs.
Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2024.
Amount awarded: AUD 150,000 buffer for past and future economic loss, plus AUD 32,626.18 costs inclusive of GST.
Breakdown:
- Past and future economic loss buffer: AUD 150,000.
- Costs: AUD 32,626.18 inclusive of GST.
- Non-economic loss: unspecified.
- Other damages: unspecified.
Key principle: A court or tribunal may award a buffer amount for past and future economic loss where exact loss is difficult to calculate but reduced earning capacity is accepted.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2024/624.html
5. Tiwari v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPIC 251
The claimant suffered physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD. The Commission awarded damages for non-economic loss, past economic loss and future economic loss.
Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2026.
Amount awarded: AUD 811,658.10 total.
Breakdown:
- Non-economic loss: AUD 400,000.
- Past economic loss: AUD 19,695.10.
- Fox v Wood: AUD 14,963.
- Future economic loss: AUD 377,000.
- Costs / deductions: unspecified.
Key principle: PTSD and physical injuries can support a substantial damages award where they affect both non-economic loss and earning capacity.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2026/251.html
6. Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v O’Keefe [2024] NSWPIC 457
Mr O’Keefe was a Rural Fire Service volunteer who suffered serious physical injuries and PTSD after a traumatic accident while responding to a fire. He later brought a motor accident damages claim against the insurer.
The Personal Injury Commission accepted that Mr O’Keefe suffered PTSD and major depressive disorder, together with physical injuries. The case considered the impact of those injuries on his work capacity, daily functioning, care needs, treatment expenses, and future economic loss.
The decision mentioned “obvious error”, but this was not an appeal or reconsideration of a previous decision. It was a damages assessment.
The Commission awarded Mr O’Keefe damages of $1,575,576.42 and costs of $100,477.04.
Key principle: PTSD can form a major part of a damages assessment where the psychological injury affects work capacity, daily functioning, relationships, and future care needs.
Important note: This case is useful for PTSD and a large damages award, but it should not be classified as an appeal case.
Case link: https://jade.io/article/1088960?at.hl=PTSD%252Cappealled
Appeal courts
1. Brickworks Ltd v Wright [2022] NSWPICPD 21
Mr Wright had previously suffered PTSD after an earlier work-related incident. Years later, while working for Brickworks, he claimed that workplace disciplinary action and conflict aggravated his underlying PTSD.
The Personal Injury Commission accepted that Mr Wright had suffered a psychological injury described as PTSD or an aggravation of PTSD, and awarded him weekly compensation.
Brickworks appealed the decision. The employer argued that its disciplinary action was reasonable under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act, that the Member had not properly considered the worker’s alleged threatening words and workplace policies, and that the worker should not receive compensation from Brickworks because he was also receiving payments from another insurer for the earlier injury.
The appeal was dismissed. The Presidential Member confirmed the Certificate of Determination, meaning Mr Wright kept the award of weekly payments.
The worker was awarded $1,944.22 per week from 23 September 2019 to 23 December 2019, and $1,637.24 per week from 24 December 2019 and continuing.
Key principle: An employer cannot simply rely on “discipline” to avoid liability for psychological injury. The Commission must look at whether the disciplinary action was reasonable, including the way the process was carried out.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPICPD/2022/21.html
2. State of NSW (Western NSW Local Health District) v Knight [2023] NSWPICPD 63
Ms Knight was working from home during the COVID-19 period with her employer’s knowledge and approval. While working from home, she suffered physical injuries and later required treatment for PTSD after a dog-related incident near her home.
At first instance, the Personal Injury Commission found that the injuries arose in the course of employment and that her employment was a substantial contributing factor. She was awarded weekly compensation and medical expenses.
The employer appealed. It argued that the injury did not happen in the course of employment, that employment was not a substantial contributing factor, and that the Member had failed to properly consider non-work-related factors.
The appeal was dismissed. The Presidential Member confirmed the original Certificate of Determination, meaning Ms Knight kept her entitlement to weekly compensation and medical expenses under section 60.
The exact total dollar amount was not stated in the appeal summary, but the confirmed award included weekly compensation and medical/treatment expenses.
Key principle: An injury suffered while working from home can still be work-related if the work situation materially contributed to the risk or circumstances of the injury.
Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPICPD/2023/63.html
3. Magarey v Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (Nambour Hospital) [2022] QCA 189 (30 September 2022)
Ms Magarey suffered a right ankle injury in 2013. She later underwent surgery in 2015 at the defendant hospital. She alleged the surgery was unnecessary and negligent, leading to serious complications and ultimately an amputation in 2018.
She relied on obtaining a medical expert report much later as the “new material fact” justifying extension of time. She had instructed solicitors, but there were significant delays in obtaining medical expert evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
It upheld the trial judge’s decision refusing the extension of time.
Key principle: Even where a plaintiff is relying on solicitors, they must still show they took active and reasonable steps to progress their claim. Delays in obtaining expert evidence will not usually justify extending limitation periods unless properly explained and supported.
Negligence case
Advocate immunity problem
Time limit problem
1. Magarey v Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (Nambour Hospital) [2022] QCA 189 (30 September 2022)
Ms Magarey suffered a right ankle injury in 2013. She later underwent surgery in 2015 at the defendant hospital. She alleged the surgery was unnecessary and negligent, leading to serious complications and ultimately an amputation in 2018.
She relied on obtaining a medical expert report much later as the “new material fact” justifying extension of time. She had instructed solicitors, but there were significant delays in obtaining medical expert evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
It upheld the trial judge’s decision refusing the extension of time.
Key principle: Even where a plaintiff is relying on solicitors, they must still show they took active and reasonable steps to progress their claim. Delays in obtaining expert evidence will not usually justify extending limitation periods unless properly explained and supported.