Important takeaways from the decision in Talevska v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2022] NSWPICMP 82:

• Only one injury needs to fall outside the definition of “minor injury” to entitle the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and common law damages.
   
• The Review Panel dismissed an Application to assess other injuries on the basis it was no longer relevant.

Important takeaways from the decision in Muradi v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2022] NSWPICMP 59:

• The Review Panel had regard to various studies addressing annular tears and determined that although the accident could have caused an annular tear, it did not cause the Claimant’s annular tear.
   
• The Review Panel considered that the Claimant’s symptoms were more likely attributable to damage to other musculoskeletal structures and psychological distress, than the annular tears.

Important takeaways from the decision in Venizelou v AAI Ltd [2021] NSWPICMP 215:

• The Panel accepted that further tearing of an already degenerate lateral meniscus caused by the accident was a partial rupture of the meniscus, and that such injury was not a minor injury for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

Important takeaways from the decision in GIO Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Taouk [2021] NSWPICMP 193:

• Where the examination findings of the initial Assessor are not in dispute, a physical re-examination of the Claimant is not necessary, and is consistent with the objects of the PIC to “resolve the real issues in proceedings justly, quickly, cost effectively and with as little formality as possible” (see Section 3(c) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020).
   
• Although not determinative of causation, a lack of contemporaneous records of an injury will be a relevant factor, particularly if the contemporaneous records are detailed and are suggestive of “precision in questioning and recording”.

Important takeaway from the decision in Simon v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2022] NSWPICMP 216:

• Neurological symptoms must correspond with pathology identified on radiological imaging.

Important Takeaways from the decision in Vuong v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA [2022] NSWPICMP 55 :

• 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”.

Important takeaways from the decision in Cho v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPICMP 107:

• The Review Panel applied the findings in Lynch v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2022] NSW PICMP 6 as to the timing of the diagnosis.
   
• The Review Panel did not diagnose PTSD as the accident was not experienced as a threat of serious injury or death.

Important takeaways from the decision in David v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2021] NSWPICMP 227:

• Radiculopathy does not need to be present at the time of the Assessment.  It is sufficient that radiculopathy is confirmed as per Section 5.8 of the Guidelines at any time following the accident.
   
• Annular tears will not be attributed to an accident merely because there is no history of back pain or pre-existing pathology.

Important takeaways from the decision in Lynch v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2022] NSWPICMP 6:

• A diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder cannot be made if the stress related disturbance meets the criteria for another mental disorder. 
• A psychiatric diagnosis in remission may be found to be a non-minor injury.
• The Claimant bears the onus of establishing that their injury is a non-minor injury.