1. The proposed settlement of $350,000 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

1. [CEE] was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 29 November 2018 (accident). He 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 10 March 2021.
2. On 13 February 2026 the insurer made an offer to settle the claim for $350,000 (offer). The offer only includes an allowance for non-economic loss and does not include any allowance for economic loss, [CEE] having retired in 2012.
3. On 16 February 2026 [CEE] accepted the offer. The insurer has not paid any weekly payments of statutory benefits and there are to be no deductions from the offer. Accordingly, the proposed settlement is $350,000 clear to [CEE] (proposed settlement). Because he 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.
4. The insurer commenced these proceedings seeking approval of the settlement. For the reasons that follow the proposed settlement is approved.

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, among other matters, the process for obtaining the Commission's approval of a settlement.

1. The matter was listed for approval on 5 March 2026. [CEE] and the insurer's representative, Mr Izzard, appeared. [CEE] was aware he was entitled to be legally represented and confirmed he did not wish to have legal representation. He also understood the settlement, if approved, would be paid as a lump sum, on a once and for all basis, and that he could not claim further damages.
2. [CEE] confirmed that at the time of the accident he was not working, and that he retired in 2012. He has not received any Centrelink payments and is in receipt of an age pension. On this background, [CEE] understood he was not entitled to damages for economic loss and that the only damages he could be awarded were for non-economic loss.
3. [CEE] told me about his accident caused injuries and the impact those injuries have had on him. He described injuries to his head, shoulders, neck, back, left thumb (requiring surgery), fingers, and left knee. He has scarring on his forehead, experiences headaches and takes pain medication.
4. [CEE] told me that as a result of the accident he was "knocked out" for a brief period. I discussed with him the Ambulance report in which it was recorded: "O/A pt conscious orientated" and "pt has full recall of the event denies LOC full motor sencery [sic] function". I also referred to the Albury Base Hospital discharge summary that states: "GCS 15 on arrival, denies LOC" and the Triage Nurse notes that state: "Nil LOC, full recall". Finally, I noted the brain CT findings recorded in the radiologist reports dated 29 November 2018 and 7 March 2025.
5. [CEE] told me about the impact his injuries have had on him. His left knee and back injuries give him the most trouble. He described problems with mobility; he uses a walking stick and cannot walk very far. This is particularly distressing to him as prior to the accident he experienced particular enjoyment walking his dog for "kilometres and kilometres." His hand injuries prevent him from engaging in woodwork, something he enjoyed doing before the accident.
6. [CEE] also raised the prospect of a left knee replacement, something recommended by his treating doctors. I explained the process for making a claim on the insurer for that surgery, and informed him that if there was a dispute, he could make an application to the Commission for the dispute to be assessed by a Medical Assessor.
7. Finally, [CEE] told me he wanted to accept the settlement and that he wanted me to approve it.
8. Mr Izzard confirmed there would be no deductions to the settlement and that [CEE] would receive $350,000 in the hand.

1. The documentary evidence before the Commission is contained in the application lodged by the insurer. [CEE] did not wish to add anything to this material for the purposes of the approval.
2. Correspondence from the insurer confirms that liability for the damages claim was admitted[1] and that the insurer agreed [CEE] was entitled to damages for non-economic loss.[2] An offer of settlement was made on 13 February 2026. A document styled "Agreement of Release" was signed by [CEE] on 16 February 2026. I have considered the terms of that document.
3. The Application for personal injury damages dated 4 December 2018 contains a description of the accident and [CEE]'s injuries. It is recorded that he has not been away from work since the accident, that he was unemployed, and in receipt of a "Seniors Pension" at the time of the accident.
4. A NSW Police report dated 29 March 2019 contains details of the accident including the parties involved, the date, time, conditions and location. The report contains the following "[c]rash [s]ummary [d]etails":

"At 710am on Thursday, 29th November, 2018 a 68 yr old male was crossing [the] Road, ... from the north to south. When midway across, he was struck by a blue Ford Falcon sedan which was being driven east in ... at 40 KPH by a 19 yr old male."

1. A NSW Ambulance Service report contains the following case description:

"hx of out walking dog ,crossing road when struck by vehicle doing approx 55/60 kmph ,witnesses state pt was thrown from point of impact approx 5/6 meters and reached at a height of approx one meter to one and a half before contacting road with right side head and right shoulder.Amb called ,O/A pt conscious orientated supine on road ,nose to toes==puddle of blood noted around head (volume lost ????approx 100-200ml) large haematoma and laceration to right forehead other laceration to occipital head not accessed,moderate pain to upper cervical neck swelling /bruising to right shoulder pain incerased [sic] upon palpation of area good bilateral air entry with vesicular breath sounds at scene and enroute, partial amputation to left thumb tip lacerations to left paim [sic],right middle finger frclosed [sic] fracture ,abrasions /lacerations to right hand palm ?fracture of left ankle anf [sic] left big toe ,extensive bruising and abrasions to left foot ,abrasions to right foot /ankle increasing nonspecific general body aches and pains enroute.pt has full recall of the event denies LOC full motor sencery [sic] function."

1. The evidence before the Commission includes clinical notes from Albury Base Hospital. The discharge summary records [CEE] was admitted on 29 November 2018 and discharged on

3 December 2028. The principal diagnosis was: head laceration, left thumb nail bed injury, third metacarpal fracture in the right hand and left foot abrasions. The discharge summary records "GCS 15 on arrival, denies LOC". 2. The Triage Nurse notes record:

"Hit by car, fell onto head and R shoulder. GCS 15 on scene. Open wound to occipital head, forntal [sic] forehead, C-spine tenderness, L partiel [sic] AMP thumb. Nil neuro deficits. Nil LOC, full recall..."

1. Following his discharge from hospital [CEE] attended the fracture clinic. Records from the clinic are included in the hospital records and confirm he underwent a left thumb nailbed repair on 1 December 2018.
2. The hospital records include various radiological investigations. The radiologist's report of the CT scan performed on 29 November 2018 records relevantly:

A large subcutaneous haematoma is noted overlying the right side of the frontal bone extending inferiorly to the superior orbital margin. No underlying skull fracture detected. The paranasal sinuses and mastoid air cells are clear and normally aerated as are the middle ear cavities bilaterally.

No evidence of intracranial haemorrhage detected...

There is moderate to marked spondylodegenerative change in the mid cervical spine with mild Grade I retrolisthesis of C4 on C5. There is fusion of the C2/3 facet joints bilaterally and partial fusion of the C2 to C3 vertebral bodies. No fracture is detected in the cervical spine. Images of the neck have been coned to the cervical spine and immediately surrounding tissues, but no significant abnormality is identified in these visualised paraspinal soft tissues...

Subcutaneous haematoma noted overlying the right side of the frontal bone. Aside from this no evidence of significant traumatic injury identified in the head, neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis or proximal femora. A 15mm region of low attenuation in the interpolar region/mid to lower pole of the left kidney is indeterminate on current CT imaging and further evaluation of this with ultrasound is recommended."

1. The evidence includes clinical notes from Rehoboth Medical Centre are for the period 29 November 2023 to 24 July 2024. The patient notes and other records, including various referrals, have been considered. The report of the left knee X-ray dated 25 February 2025 records there are advanced degenerative changes involving the medial joint compartment. The brain CT report dated 7 March 2025 records under the heading "conclusion" that there are no significant intercranial findings.
2. The records and reports from the physiotherapist are for attendances in 2018 and 2019 relating to the thumb and finger injuries.
3. Radiological reports relating to [CEE]'s left knee and right hand have been considered, as have the photographs.[3]

1. A certificate of fitness dated 4 December 2018 refers to "left thumb nail bed injury post MVA". A certificate dated 27 May 2019 records:

"Musculoskeletal injury to C-spine, Loss of consciousness (with post concussion syndrome); Dislocated right middle finger; Skin injury to right forehead with ongoing discomfort; injury to left thumb (nail avulsion); Left knee pain and crepitations (may require surgery); right hip pain. Ligament injury right middle finger (may require surgery in future but currently been managed conservatively i.e. with splinting, hand therapy)."

1. In a report dated 15 April 2019 Dr Dass, orthopaedic surgeon, referred to a right middle finger injury caused by the accident. It is noted in the report [CEE] is left hand dominant. An ultrasound showed a radial collateral ligament tear. He was unable to make a fist. In a report dated 6 May 2019 the doctor recorded that right hand MRI scans showed a rupture of the C1 pully third finger. This injury was best treated with hand therapy.
2. In a report dated 5 September 2019 Dr Gayagay recorded as follows:

"....He is now 10 months post a pedestrian vs car episode. He had an episode of loss of consciousness and has been triaged accordingly at the hospital. Since then, he claims that he does not trust his balance (following the head injury) but also has ongoing left knee pain which were not present prior to that accident.

Prior to [CEE]'s accident of Nov 2018, he claims that he was able to walk the dog and without any symptoms. He has had two hip replacements in the past which continue to serve him well."

1. In the doctor's opinion, [CEE]'s knee arthritis was likely pre-existing but quiescent. The accident had aggravated an underlying condition which has failed to resolve over the 10 months post injury. The surgical treatment required is a total knee replacement to help alleviate his knee pain. Conservative management can continue. In the absence of any resolution since November of 2018, it will only get worse "as is the nature of arthritis". The doctor sought approval for a knee arthroplasty.
2. In a report dated 30 November 2020 Dr Evans recorded that following the accident [CEE] had six sutures in his right forehead. He had permanent scarring, and experiences mild numbness and a throbbing pain, and sometimes sharp pain, at the location of the scar. His right shoulder sustained a rotator cuff injury, and this continues to be a source of pain and dysfunction. He can abduct his right arm but beyond around 80 degrees, he suffers pain and weakness which is a significant source of ongoing disability. He suffers pain to sleep on his right side and can only do so when on narcotic analgesia. Prior to the accident [CEE] had back pain but this has been worse; it is now constant pain rather than intermittent since the accident. This pain is managed with painkillers. He has required increased doses of analgesia to control the pain. While he had left knee pain prior to the accident, his pain since the accident has been greater and this has affected his functioning in that he can now walk only short distances. He has required increasing doses of pain killers to manage this pain. At the time of the accident, [CEE] sustained injury to his right middle finger, which does not fully flex or extend and remains stiff. He has sought orthopaedic advice regarding this injury and has been told that surgery may not ultimately improve matters. He continues to tolerate the loss of function in this digit. [CEE]'s balance was affected, independent of injuries to his knees and back, by the accident and this continues. He finds that he needs to take extra care to avoid falls.
3. Dr Frawley, orthopaedic surgeon, reported to the insurer on 23 September 2024. The doctor recorded the following history of the accident:

"[CEE] describes being hit by a car as he was crossing the road near his house. He thinks it happened about 7 o'clock in the morning. The driver of the car apparently had the sun in his eyes, and [CEE] feels this stopped the driver seeing him clearly. He couldn't recall how fast the car was going when he was struck. He was flung through the air and landed on bitumen. He thinks he sustained a brief loss of consciousness."

1. The doctor recorded details of [CEE]'s post-accident symptoms and treatment together with his past medical history. His major problem was his left knee. He has poor mobility, has been using a walking stick, and has significant pain whilst he is walking. He occasionally gets pain at night as well. He experiences a giving way sensation in the knee and is aware of crepitus. He has difficulty using stairs and the toilet and can no longer use the bath.
2. His second main problem is neck pain. He has difficulty turning his head. He has had headaches and dizziness ever since the accident and has difficulty looking upwards because he loses balance. The neck and balance problems had not been investigated.
3. In Dr Frawley's opinion, as a result of the accident the claimant suffered the following injuries: closed head injury, right orbital laceration and haematoma, left thumb fracture and nail bed laceration, right middle finger PIP joint dorsal dislocation, exacerbation of left knee arthritis, and neck injury. In the doctor's opinion, [CEE] requires a knee replacement and the "neck/headaches/poor balance needs to be sorted out".

1. The insurer relies on written submissions dated 24 February 2026 in support of the application for approval of the proposed settlement. The submissions include relevant background to the claim, a summary of the medical evidence, and details of the proposed settlement.

1. As a result of the accident [CEE] suffered injuries to his forehead, including scarring, neck, back, left thumb, fingers, shoulders and left knee. He suffers ongoing headaches and is likely to undergo a left knee replacement. It is probable the accident has aggravated degenerative changes in his back, neck, right shoulder and left knee. [CEE] is in his mid-seventies. I have taken into consideration his life expectancy on the medium tables.
2. [CEE] described a brief loss of consciousness following the accident. The contemporaneous records, earlier discussed, state there was no loss of consciousness and that his GCS was 15. The Triage Nurse recorded "Nil LOC, full recall". Subsequent radiological investigations have not identified any traumatic pathology in [CEE]'s brain. While it is possible [CEE] was "knocked out" for a brief period, I am satisfied on the evidence before the Commission, and for the purposes of this approval, that he did not suffer a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident.
3. The only head of damages to which [CEE] is entitled is non-economic loss. Damages of this type compensate for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement. The current maximum amount that can be awarded for non-economic loss under the MAI Act is $691,000.[4]
4. In addition to his past pain and suffering and his ongoing injuries and disabilities, I have taken into account the likelihood that [CEE] will undergo a left knee replacement. While it is clear on the radiology there were pre-existing degenerative changes in his left knee, I am satisfied the accident has made his knee symptoms worse and has made a material contribution to his need for the surgery. In this regard, I accept Dr Frawley's opinion that: the surgery is "long overdue"; the accident caused significant worsening of the pre-existing left knee arthritis, and the need for surgery "arises out of the accident".
5. The proposed settlement includes an allowance of $350,000 for non-economic loss. I am satisfied the allowance is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential awards for this head.
6. No allowance has been made in the proposed settlement for past or future economic loss. [CEE] retired from work in 2012. I am satisfied that if his damages were assessed by the Commission, [CEE] would not be awarded damages for past and future economic loss.

1. 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 [CEE] as a result of the accident. There are no reductions or deductions to the proposed settlement.
2. I am satisfied [CEE] understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and wants to accept the proposed settlement.
3. Having considered the documentary evidence filed by the insurer, and what [CEE] 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] Letter from the insurer dated 10 March 2021.

[2] Letter from the insurer dated 13 February 2026.

[3] Pages 341 - 347 in the insurer's documents.