1. The proposed settlement of $710,000 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

1. [DTM] was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 14 July 2024 (accident). She subsequently made a claim for damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on AAI Limited t/as GIO (insurer). Liability for the claim was admitted on 21 October 2025.
2. On 9 February 2026 the insurer offered to settle the damages claim for $630,000 less weekly payments of statutory benefits[1]. On 19 February 2026 the insurer made an increased offer to settle the claim for $710,000 less weekly payments of statutory benefits (offer). The offer included the following allowances:

1. On 24 February 2026 [DTM] accepted the offer.
2. The proposed settlement is $710,000 less weekly payments of statutory benefits in the amount of $23,245.66. Because she is not legally represented, approval of the proposed settlement by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) is required: s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act.
3. The insurer commenced these proceedings seeking approval of the settlement. For the reasons that follow the proposed settlement is approved.

1. An approval conference was held on 2 March 2026. [DTM] confirmed she understood that she could be represented by a lawyer and that she did not wish to be. [DTM] also confirmed she had received and considered the material filed by the insurer in support of the approval and did not wish to rely on any evidence in addition to that material.
2. [DTM] described her accident caused injuries as involving her back, right heel, right ankle and left shoulder. She confirmed she had read the insurer's written submissions, and that the summaries of her pre-accident earnings and past loss of earnings in the submissions are accurate. [DTM] also confirmed she is satisfied she is being fully compensated for her past loss of earnings by the amount allowed for that head of damages in the proposed settlement.
3. [DTM] described her pre and post-accident work duties. She told me she is now working three days a week and is "going fine". If she is on her feet all day her right foot will "play up". She also experiences back pain after working. She said her left shoulder was "good" and gave her "no trouble".
4. Ms Hill confirmed the only deduction to be made from the proposed settlement was the sum of $23,245.66 representing weekly payments of statutory benefits paid by the insurer to [DTM]. No other deductions are to be made.
5. [DTM] confirmed that she had not received any Centrelink payments. She also confirmed she was aware that the sum of $23,245.66 would be deducted from the proposed settlement and that she would receive $686,754.34 in the hand.
6. [DTM] confirmed her understanding that the proposed settlement involved a lump sum payment on a "once and for all" basis and that, if approved, she would not be able to claim further damages and her entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits would come to an end. She also confirmed that she wanted me to approve the proposed settlement.

1. Section 6.23 of the MAI Act imposes restrictions on the settlement of a claim for damages. That provision states relevantly:

"6.23 Restrictions on settlement of claim for damages

(a) ...

(b) the proposed settlement is approved by the Commission.

(3) The Commission is not to approve the settlement of a claim unless satisfied that the settlement complies with any applicable requirements of or made under this Act or the Motor Accident Guidelines."

1. Clause 7.37 of the Motor Accident Guidelines states as follows:

"7.37 Under section 6.23(3) of the Act, before the Personal Injury Commission may approve the settlement of a claim for damages, it must be satisfied that:

(a) (Omitted)

(b) the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by the Commission, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claimant, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement

(c) the claimant understands that they are entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner

(d) the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement."

1. Procedural Direction MA3 deals with the approval of a damages settlement and describes, among other matters, the process for obtaining the Commission's approval of a settlement.

1. The documentary evidence is contained in the application filed by the insurer. I have considered this material, in particular the evidence referred to in the insurer's written submissions.
2. In her application for personal injury benefits dated 16 July 2024 [DTM] provided a description of the accident and her injuries (fractured T2 and L1, tail bone fracture, and right foot fractures). Details of her employment as a farm hard are recorded, including her earnings.
3. The evidence includes the insurer's determination of the claimant's pre-accident weekly earnings dated 20 August 2024, its acceptance of liability for the damages claim dated

21 October 2025, and its concession on 7 October 2025 that [DTM]'s accident caused injuries give rise to an impairment that is greater than 10%. 4. At the insurer's request, Dr Lee, Occupational Physician, examined the claimant and provided a report dated 23 October 2025. The doctor recorded details of the accident, the claimant's injuries, her treatment and her return to work. 5. [DTM] reported that at the time of the accident she was working at a chicken farm four days a week seven and a half hours a day. Her duties included fencing, slashing, feeding and moving chickens. She was also working concurrently for a flower farm one day a week. 6. Dr Lee diagnosed: a T9 wedge fracture with 25% vertebral body loss, T12 wedge fracture with damage to the posterior interspinous ligament, L1 mild crush fracture with 10% vertebral body loss, fractured coccyx, fractured right calcaneus, fractured right talus, and left shoulder subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis with impingement. 7. The thoracic, lumbar and coccyx fractures, and left shoulder had stabilised. The right ankle injury had not stabilised; [DTM] having undergone right ankle surgery in July 2025. The doctor expected that injury to stabilise in the proceeding three months. With respect to her ability to resume pre-accident employment the doctor recorded as follows:

"[DTM] has resumed her pre-accident employment. She had resumed part time restricted duties from 28 October 2024 and was certified fit for pre-injury duties from the 16th January 2025 of a labour intensive manner.

She currently works three days a week in the chicken farm where she was working prior to the incident but has commenced with a new employer weeding for the elderly that she does one day a week from early this year."

"[DTM] was unable to resume pre-accident employment from the time of the incident and was certified fit for part time work with restrictions from 28 October 2024, then fit pre- injury from January 2025.

In my opinion, this is reasonable. [T]his was solely the result of the accident."

1. Dr Lee considered it reasonable that [DTM] was certified fit for restricted duties and hours from 28 October 2024 until the 16 January 2025, when she was certified fit for

pre-injury duties. The doctor assessed a 23% permanent impairment as a result of [DTM]'s accident caused injuries. 2. A report from the NSW Ambulance service records [DTM] was injured in a "single motorbike accident". There is a description of her injuries under the headings "Case Description" and "Secondary Survey". 3. A discharge referral from John Hunter Hospital records [DTM] was admitted on 14 July 2024 and discharged on 18 July 2024. The primary diagnosis was right anterior calcaneus [heel bone] fracture. The secondary diagnosis was right talus [ankle bone] fracture, T12/L1 burst fracture with posterior T12 ligamentous disruption and pituitary cyst.

1. The Emergency Department triage nurse notes state as follows:

"...pt BIBA [brought in by Ambulance] post MBC [motor bike crash], pt was passenger, ?brakes failed around bend 80km/hr, bike slid and pt thrown from bike landing on R side. Wearing helmet. Nil LOC. Pt c/o neck/lumbar pain, abrasions to head and buttock. pt incontinent of urine on scene. Nil sensory deficits...moving all limbs. PMHx HTH, brain cyst, chronic neck pain..."

1. The hospital records contain various radiological reports, all of which have been considered. The investigations confirmed the fractures in the calcaneal process and talus. An MRI scan report records the following findings:

Multiple vertebral fractures involving T10-L1, and the coccyx. The fracture of T12 is unstable and involves the posterior elements, with associated ligamentous disruption at this level...

Incidental findings as above include cervical and lumbar degenerative change, suspected bilateral sacroiliitis [sic] along with possible uterine fibroid."

1. The report of the CT of the brain, cervical spine, chest, abdomen and pelvis dated 15 July 2024 records as follows under the heading "Comment":

"1) No acute intracranial haemorrhage or other acute intracranial abnormality identified.

2. No acute bony injury identified in the cervical spine.

3. Crush fracture of the T12 vertebra (which appears to extend from the anterior margin of the vertebral body on the right to the left superior articular facet, resulting approximately 50% loss of vertebral body height, without significant bony retropulsion/or spinal canal stenosis).

6. No acute bony or visceral injury identified elsewhere in the chest, abdomen and pelvis..."

1. The evidence before the Commission includes various reports from treatment providers. In a report dated 1 October 2024, Dr Johnson, Neurosurgeon, recorded [DTM] was referred in relation to her thoracolumbar injury. She described mostly left paraspinal pain around the thoracolumbar junction and reported a slow gradual build-up of pain in the back over the course of the day. [DTM] denied any radicular type pain or bladder and bowel dysfunction. She reported she is mobilising independently.
2. Dr Johnson recorded as follows with respect to [DTM]'s capacity for work:

"...I would be happy for her to return to work and given that she does have some heavy lifting to do, it might be reasonable to recommence back at that three-month mark (which is in a week or so) with some gradual return to duties over perhaps half days at first. I think once she returns, she will know her limitations and should slowly increase her weight capacity from say 5 to 10 kilograms to start with and then gradually increase every week or so by 5 kilograms as she feels more confident and can reassure herself that she is not making any symptoms worse."

1. Reports from Dr O'Sullivan, [DTM]'s treating orthopaedic surgeon, are in evidence. On 26 June 2025 the doctor recorded: "[s]he is lucky that she has done so well but she still gets pain daily over the lateral aspect of her right hindfoot. She is tender over the anterior process of her calcaneus where her x-ray show a small fracture". An operation report dated 25 July 2025 records [DTM] underwent a left calcaneocuboid joint arthrotomy and debridement.
2. The evidence includes a number of certificates of capacity. [DTM] was certified unfit for work from 14 July 2024 until 5 August 2024. In a certificate dated 23 October 2024 she was certified as having capacity for some type of employment from 28 October 2024 to 22 November 2024 four hours a day five days a week. Certificates in similar terms were issued on 13 November 2024 and 13 December 2024. On 14 February 2025 she was certified as fit for pre-injury duties three non-consecutive days a week. [DTM] was subsequently certified fit for a trial of pre-injury duties starting from 12 April 2025. She was certified as fit for pre-injury duties on 8 May 2025 and again on 5 June 2025. On 1 July 2025 she was certified as having no capacity to work from 25 July 2025 until 1 August 2025 and then fit for pre-injury duties from 24 July 2025. On 29 July 2025 [DTM] was certified as having no current work capacity from 1 August 2025 until 29 August 2025. These last two certificates were issued following the surgery performed by Dr O'Sullivan on 25 July 2025.
3. On 22 August 2025 [DTM] was certified fit to trial pre-injury duties from 25 August 2025. Similar certification was given on 24 September 2025 and 14 October 2025. On

5 November 2025, 9 December 2025, and 27 January 2026 [DTM] was certified fit for pre-injury duties. 4. Allied health recovery requests in evidence relate to physiotherapy. The requests, together with the physiotherapy notes, have been considered. 5. The evidence includes clinical records from [DTM]'s General Practitioner (GP). The patient notes cover the period 14 July 2021 to 12 February 2025. The pre-accident notes contain references to various complaints, ailments, and treatment. The post-accident notes include references to left shoulder pain, [DTM]'s treatment, progress and fitness for work. The records also include various radiological reports and referrals. 6. The evidence includes pre and post-accident wage records and post-accident hours worked that have been recorded by hand. The pre-accident pay records are summarised in a table at [3.8] in the insurer's written submissions. As previously recorded, [DTM] agrees the summary is accurate.

1. The insurer relies on detailed written submissions dated 25 February 2026 in support of the application for approval of the proposed settlement. The submissions include relevant background to the claim and refer to various aspects of the medical evidence. The submissions also include a summary of pre-accident wage records and [DTM]'s

post-accident loss of earnings. 2. The submissions contain a detailed breakdown of the allowances made for each head of damages. Past economic loss, including tax on weekly benefits and loss of superannuation, is calculated to be $30,710.52. The insurer has allowed an increased sum of $35,000 for past economic loss. 3. In relation to future economic loss, the insurer noted [DTM] has been certified fit for

pre-injury duties. For the reasons explained at [3.21]-[3.23] the insurer has allowed $300,000 for future economic loss. This sum includes loss of superannuation and an additional allowance of $10,000 for a loss of opportunity to take on more jobs in her gardening/lawn mowing business.

1. As a result of the accident [DTM] suffered injuries to her right heel, right ankle, back and left shoulder. Although her left shoulder injury is not troubling her, [DTM] is experiencing ongoing back and right foot symptoms and consequential disability.
2. [DTM] has returned to her pre-accident job but is only working three days a week. She has an accident caused loss of earning capacity that has given rise to past financial loss and will likely give rise to a future financial loss. If her damages were assessed by the Commission, [DTM] would receive awards for non-economic loss, past economic loss and future economic loss, including loss of superannuation.
3. The current maximum amount that can be awarded for non-economic loss under the MAI Act is $691,000.[3] The proposed settlement includes an allowance of $375,000 for this head of damages. I am satisfied the allowance is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential awards for this head.
4. [DTM] confirmed the allowance for past economic loss covered her loss to date. On the evidence before me I am satisfied the allowance made in the proposed settlement for past economic loss is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential awards for this head.
5. I am also satisfied that the allowance for future economic loss in the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential awards.
6. As a global sum I am satisfied the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by the Commission, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by [DTM] as a result of the accident.
7. The only deduction from the proposed settlement is the sum of $23,245.66 representing payments of weekly compensation received by [DTM]. She will receive the sum of $686,754.34 in the hand.
8. I am satisfied [DTM] understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and wants to accept it.
9. Having considered the evidence filed in support of the application, and what [DTM] told me at the approval conference, the proposed settlement is approved.

1. These reasons contain sensitive personal information. Having weighed the matters referred to in r 132(4) of the Rules, including the safety, health and wellbeing of the claimant, and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice, I am satisfied these reasons should be de-identified before they are published.
2. I direct that, pursuant to r 132 of the Rules, the decision be de-identified prior to publication.

[1] The insurer's correspondence dated 9 February 2026 contains a breakdown of the offer.

[2] The allowance for past economic loss is comprised as follows: