1. The proposed settlement of $37,902.04 all inclusive is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

1. Ian Witschi (the claimant) attended with the AAI Limited t/as AAMI (the insurer's) representative at the teleconference on 14 January 2026. This was listed for settlement approval. The claimant's continuing accident related disabilities, which are markedly reduced problems are with his right shoulder and the supraspinatus tear in that body part.
2. I recorded the proceedings on Teams. The parties appeared on video. I could see and hear the parties clearly.
3. The insurer commenced these proceedings seeking approval of the settlement.
4. The documentary evidence and submissions in support of the approval are contained in the insurer's application.
5. Because the claimant is not currently legally represented, approval of the proposed settlement by the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) is required: s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
6. The claimant was aware he was entitled to be legally represented. He confirmed that he did not wish to have legal representation. He did not wish to delay settlement to explore whether his condition could deteriorate. The claimant is an educated man, who has been a primary school teacher for over 20 years.
7. On Wednesday 6 November 2024 Mr Witschi was in the rear seat on the right side of an Uber driving through Pyrmont. The driver was travelling at about 60kph when the driver lost control and hit a traffic pole and collided with a stationary car at the lights. Mr Witschi was wearing a seatbelt and sustained a jarring injury to his right shoulder. He did not sustain a head injury. He was able to get out of the car.
8. Police and ambulance officers attended the scene. Ambulance officers examined him and he remembers they told him they did not believe that he needed go to hospital.
9. Mr Witschi has not had any time off from work following the accident. He has managed treatment and rehabilitation outside of his work hours.
10. The insurer has admitted breach of duty of care with no allegation of contributory negligence. The claimant sustained non-threshold injuries. The insurer has accepted liability for treatment expenses.
11. On 10 December 2025 the parties signed a deed where the insurer agreed to the claimant's offer to settle his claim for damages for $37,922.04.
12. The offer only included past weekly benefits at $1,922.04 and $36,000 for future economic loss.
13. Weekly payments of statutory benefits will be deducted from the offer. There are no Centrelink benefits to repay. The claimant will receive $36,000.
14. I was satisfied by the claimant's demeanour, his educational background and the quality of his contributions that he was in a position to to competently resolve the dispute with the insurer.

1. Section 6.23 of the MAI Act imposes restrictions on the settlement of a claim for damages. That provision is, relevantly, in the following terms:

"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 the process.

1. Mr Witschi followed up with his general practitioner (GP) the day after the accident. Right shoulder ultrasounds showed partial thickness tears in the rotator cuff.
2. He was treated conservatively with extensive physiotherapy followed by exercise physiology.
3. Orthopaedic specialist Dr Doron Sher injected cortisone into the right shoulder twice which greatly improved his symptoms. Dr Sher recommended continuing conservative treatment and was of the opinion that surgery would not be required.
4. Orthopaedic specialist Associate Prof Craig Waller recently examined the claimant to produce a report dated 22 November 2025.
5. At the time of the examination the claimant told the specialist that his symptoms greatly improved and that he only had mild pain in the right shoulder when he was active.
6. He does have difficulty weight-bearing through the right shoulder doing push-ups, but he does not have problems lifting, reaching or performing overhead activities. His ordinary activities of daily living have been largely unaffected.
7. The specialist noted the right shoulder has a normal appearance with no evident muscle wasting. He also recorded a full range of motion in the right shoulder.
8. Associate Prof Waller opined in his report dated 22 November 2025 that the right shoulder condition is highly unlikely to deteriorate and cause degenerative or arthritic changes.

1. The insurer's representative confirmed that the claimant's entitlement to treatment continues, subject to the insurer accepting that future right shoulder problems are related to the accident. She also confirmed that there would be no allowance paid for time away from work for treatment as the settlement offer contemplated that contingency.
2. The claimant told me that initially and for the first half of 2025 he was disabled in terms of his right shoulder. However, thanks to cortisone injections, physiotherapy and advice from an exercise physiologist he has returned to full function and anticipates further improvement. Before the intervention from the exercise physiologist, he had been pessimistic about recovery. He had suffered psychologically due to this pessimism.
3. He thinks the offer is just, fair and reasonable. He understood that he could seek legal advice, but that the insurer had provided copious and detailed information about his entitlements, which he read and understood. He is satisfied with that.
4. He confirmed that he understands he will receive $36,000 for future economic loss, which is meant to cover time lost away from work including surgery if it is related to the accident.
5. He understands that if his condition deteriorates then once this offer is approved it is not possible to seek further compensation for time away from work or pain and suffering damages. I raised whether he may need to retire early due to the accident related conditions becoming aggravated and preventing him from working until his intended retirement age at 67. He denied that would be the case.
6. I told him that the offer was at the lower end of a possible range of damages and that it was a matter where he could make a counter offer. He said he understood that, but he was satisfied with the offer.

1. I accepted that while it was a low amount within the range it was just, because the claimant had been given the opportunity to seek legal advice, he is an educated man and he has agency to consider the insurer's offer and judge if it will adequately compensate him.
2. It is fair, because it is within the range and he does have agency to seek more.
3. It is reasonable because medical advice from Associate Prof Waller in his report dated 22 November 2025 is that it is highly unlikely to deteriorate and cause degenerative or arthritic changes. The claimant also told me that he intends to remain active, follow exercise physiology advice and this will help him manage the future trajectory of his right shoulder condition.
4. The proposed settlement of $37,902.04 all-inclusive is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act.