Review Panel: Principal Member Harris and Medical Assessors Dr Tom Newlyn and Dr Michael Hong 

Important Takeaways:

• The panel found that the Claimant’s mother’s cancer diagnosis, although unrelated to the subject accident, had not “severed the chain of causation and the subject MVA remains a significant causal factor in her current psychological injury”.

Facts

The subject accident in Vuong v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA [2022] NSWPICMP 55 was a rear end collision that took place on 10 September 2019.  At first instance, Medical Assessor Jones concluded that the Claimant did not have an active psychiatric disorder for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

The Claimant successfully applied for a Review of Assessor Jones’ assessment.

Review Panel Examination

The Claimant denied a psychiatric history and reported that she had become anxious in the subject accident, but had no major worrying thoughts about being severely injured in the accident.

Following the accident, the Claimant’s symptoms of depression and anxiety worsened.  Initially, her symptoms were related to the shock of the accident – although they subsequently related to her mother’s deteriorated physical health and dependency on her.

The Claimant’s mother’s cancer diagnosis also had an additional impact on the Claimant’s psychological health.

The Review Panel Decision

The panel found that whilst the Claimant’s mother’s cancer diagnosis was unrelated to the subject accident, it had not “severed the chain of causation and the subject MVA remains a significant causal factor in her current psychological injury”.

The Panel diagnosed a Persistent Depressive Disorder, noting that the Claimant’s depressive symptoms had persisted since the accident which had occurred over 2 years prior and certified that this was a non-minor injury for the purposes of the Act. The Claimant’s symptoms were noted to include depressed mood, poor appetite, insomnia, fatigue, poor concentration, and feelings of hopelessness.

The Panel noted that the Claimant’s symptoms were not severe enough to justify a diagnosis of MDD. They also noted that the subject accident was not a threat of serious injury or death - and as such, she did not fulfil the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. 

If you have a query relating to any of the information in this case note, or would like to speak with someone in Holman Webb’s Insurance Group in relation to a matter of your own, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with Partner Stephanie Davis today.