1. The proposed settlement of $87,428.37 is approved under sub-s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act).
2. Pursuant to sub-s 3.40(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $14,201.03 from the proposed settlement sum by way of recovery for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.

1. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 17 December 2024; she was 42 years of age at the time.
2. The claimant was treated at the accident site by ambulance paramedics and taken to Liverpool Hospital.
3. The claimant was diagnosed with a hepatic laceration and haematoma, an un-displaced right 12th rib fracture and right hip contusions (p 67).
4. The claimant was kept for observation and later discharged on 19 December 2024, with pain medications and requested to follow up with her general practitioner (GP) (pp 67 - 71).
5. The claimant was working at the time of the accident and returned to work on

17 February 2025 (p 78). 6. On 23 May 2025 the claimant made an application for common law damages (pp 5 - 11 and 12 - 18). 7. On 12 June 2025, AAMI Limited t/a GIO (the insurer) admitted liability (pp 19 - 31). 8. The insurer has made no allegation of contributory negligence, no amounts have been advanced by the insurer and the insurer seeks a deduction for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid (pp 30 - 36). 9. The insurer obtained two independent medio-legal reports. The first from Dr Donald Frommer (gastroenterologist and hepatologist), who assessed the claimant's whole person impairment (WPI) as 0% (pp 80 - 85). The second from Dr Rayment Wallace (orthopaedic surgeon) dated 31 October 2025, who assessed the claimant's WPI as having no assessable impairment (ALAD p 112). 10. The claimant is not entitled to damages for non - economic loss (NEL). 11. On 12 September 2025 the insurer made an initial offer of settlement to the claimant in the amount of $12,428.37 for past economic loss (PEL), $32,571.63 for future economic loss (FEL), and no amount was offered for NEL (pp 39 - 42). 12. On 6 November 2025 the insurer made a revised offer of settlement to the claimant in the amount of $87,428.37, comprised of the amount of $12,428.37 for PEL, $75,000 for FEL and nil for NEL (ALAD p 57). 13. The claimant is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner. 14. On 20 September 2025 the claimant executed a deed of release accepting the initial offer of settlement in the amount of $45,000. The deed identified the deductions sought to be made from the settlement as required by law such as Centrelink (pp 43 - 44). 15. The insurer acknowledged that it will not deduct from the settlement any amounts refundable to Medicare (p 5). 16. On 13 November 2025 the claimant executed a revised deed of release accepting the final offer of settlement in the amount of $87,428.37. The amended deed identified the deductions sought to be made from the settlement as required by law such as Centrelink (ALAD pp 62 - 63). The insurer again acknowledged that it will not deduct from the settlement any amounts refundable to Medicare (ALAD p 5).

1. The accident occurred on 17 December 2024 when the motor vehicle the claimant was travelling in as a passenger in the left rear seat (bearing registration number CS40HU) (the insured vehicle) was turning right from Chandos Street to travel along Wallgrove Road, Horsely Park, NSW when it collided with a motor vehicle in Wallgrove Road (the accident). The insured vehicle then spun and collided with a bus travelling in the opposite direction on Wallgrove Road (pp 49 - 55).
2. The accident caused several injuries to the claimant, which are identified below.

1. The claimant is currently 43 years of age.
2. At the time of the accident the claimant was employed as a packer at Probiotec Multipack Ltd (Multipack), earning $1,786.34 per fortnight.
3. On 17 February 2025 the claimant was certified fit to return to full time work (p 79 - 81).

1. The claimant suffered from a hepatic laceration, a small hepatic subscapular haematoma, an un-displaced right 12th rib fracture, and right hip contusions and bruises on the abdomen and elsewhere (p 78).

1. Ambulance officers attended the accident scene and observed evidence of bruising and abrasions to right and left flank regions. The claimant complained of pain affecting her abdomen, left upper arm, both left and right flanks and the lateral area of the thoracic spine (p 64).
2. It was noted the collision involved a moderate speed accident to the right side of the insured vehicle (p 67).
3. The claimant was taken to Liverpool Hospital (p 67).

1. On 17 December 2024 the claimant was admitted to the Trauma Acute Surgical Unit for investigation and management (p 68). The claimant underwent a CT of her chest, abdomen and pelvis which revealed an un-displaced fracture right 12th rib fracture and small hepatic subscapular haematoma/lacerations. There were also soft tissue contusions over her right hip region (p 70).
2. The claimant was kept for two days of observation and it was noted her blood tests were unremarkable.
3. On 19 December 2024 the claimant was discharged home with five tablets of Endone and advised to follow up with her GP in three to five days (p 70).
4. The claimant was provided with a medical certificate of incapacity indicating she had no capacity for work for the period 17 December 2024 to 3 January 2025 (pp 72 - 74).

General Practitioner (GP) - Dr Dang Vu Tran - Medlife Family Medical Centre, Lansvale

1. On 24 December 2024 the claimant was reviewed by her GP, Dr Tran who observed in addition to the injuries identified above was suffering from whiplash neck pain and post-traumatic stress disorder (p 76).
2. Dr Tran prescribed pain medication for the claimant for Endone and Panadeine Forte (p 76).
3. The claimant attended her GP on several occasions following the accident in respect of her injuries, significantly for lower back pain and analgesia. A renal ultrasound was also requested for right flank pain (which revealed there was no renal calculus observed and no hydronephrosis) and also a lumbar CT scan, which is considered below (22 January 2025, 17 January 2025, 30 January 2025, 23 February 2025, 4 February 2025 and 5 May 2025) (pp 92 - 101).
4. On 1 May 2025 the claimant was certified fit to return to full time duties from

1. The CT test identified below represents the significant test requested by the claimant's GP.

1. The CT confirmed there was no acute lumbar fracture.
2. The findings indicated the following:

(a) very mild disc protrusions at L4/5 and L5/S1, which has caused mild narrowing of the spinal canal without evidence of nerve root impingement;

(b) there is slight spondylolisthesis at L5/S1, otherwise the alignment was normal;

(c) at L1/2, L2/2 and L3/4 there is no disc herniation or neural compromise;

(d) at L4/5 there is mild broad - based central disc protrusion with evidence of early facet joint arthritis, mild narrowing of the spinal canal and no neural foraminal narrowing;

(e) at L5/S1 there is grade 1 spondylolisthesis, pars defect on the left but no pars defect on the right, a mild diffuse bulge, a mild broad base disc protrusion, mild narrowing of the spinal canal, no neural foraminal narrowing and no pars defects, and

(f) the sacroiliac joints are intact (pp 86 - 87).

Dr Donald Frommer (gastroenterologist and hepatologist) - 5 September 2025

1. The claimant was examined and assessed for her WPI at the request of the insurer.
2. Dr Frommer was assisted by a Vietnamese interpreter when assessing the claimant's gastrointestinal conditions.
3. Dr Frommer noted the history of the claimant's injuries as suffering from severe bruising in the claimant's right lower abdomen, right hip, left forearm, an un-displaced right 12th rib fracture, small hepatic subcapsular haematoma/lacerations and right hip contusions over the right hip region (p 81).
4. Dr Frommer noted the gastrointestinal history provided by the claimant as appetite and weight being unchanged since the accident, there was no reflux, dysphagia, odynophagia, heartburn, reflux, indigestion, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhoea, blood or mucus pr (p 82).
5. Dr Frommer observed upon examination of the claimant that in respect of the abdomen there were no masses, organ enlargement or bruises, but there was tenderness on the right buttock posteriorly (p 82). Dr Frommer noted there were no current symptoms or associated disabilities and that the claimant's injuries had healed and she was stabilised to be considered "sufficiently recovered" and had no residual symptoms (pp 83 - 85).
6. Dr Frommer also noted the claimant had returned to full time home duties (shortly after the accident) and fulltime employment (within three months of the accident due to pain).
7. Dr Frommer assessed the claimant's WPI as 0% impairment (p 85).

Dr Raymond Wallace (orthopaedic surgeon) - 31 October 2025

1. The claimant was examined by Dr Wallace at the request of the insurer to assess the claimant's WPI, whether there was a risk that the claimant's working life will be shortened and the reasonableness of the claimant's self-regulation as to working and daily lifting restrictions, following this matter being raised by the claimant at the first preliminary conference for the settlement approval on 21 October 2025 (I say more about this conference below).
2. Dr Wallace was assisted at his examination of the claimant on 31 October 2025 by a Vietnamese interpreter.
3. Dr Wallace obtained a history from the claimant that she was employed on a full-time basis picking and packing orders of alcohol products and was required to lift items weighing up to 12 kg each.
4. Dr Wallace noted the claimant's had no current pain at her lumbar spine, there was intermittent aching pain at the right lateral iliac crest with no radiation to her buttocks or legs. Her pain is worse with repetitive activity or heavy lifting and has no relieving factors. There was no paraesthesia, numbness or weakness at her lower limbs. She noted no stiffness in her lumbar spine and there were no other symptoms attributable to the index motor vehicle accident (ALAD p 104). Dr Wallace also noted the claimant was working full time hours, without restrictions at pre-injury levels and did not have any disturbed sleep due to any pain and that her leisure activities were unchanged (ALAD p 104).
5. Dr Wallace noted following an examination that the claimant's lumbar spine showed no swelling or deformity and an active range of motion, there were no tender areas and her gait was normal. The neurological examination of the claimant's lower limbs revealed equal and symmetrical reflexes and her power and light touch sensation were intact. The examination of the pelvis revealed that there was no deformity or swelling and there was no tenderness on compression or distraction. There was no tenderness at the right lateral iliac crest.
6. Dr Wallace stated:

"Ms Nguyen sustained injuries as a result of the motor vehicle collision on

17 December 2024. She was transported by ambulance to Liverpool Hospital where she was admitted for a period of two days. At that time, she was diagnosed with fracture of the right 12th rib and hepatic haematoma, which was treated conservatively. After discharge from hospital, she continued with the use of analgesic medication. She is currently undergoing no active treatment for her injuries. She notes no previous history of injury at her pelvis." (ALAD p 106)

1. Dr Wallace opined that the claimant does not require any further treatment or medical review for her pelvic injury, further she is fit to continue her pre-injury work duties as a packer without any restrictions and has sufficiently recovered and there is no risk of her working life being shortened (ALAD pp 106, 108 and 110).
2. Dr Wallace indicated the claimant has no assessable WPI in respect of her orthopaedic injuries (ALAD p 110).

1. On 21 October 2025, at the initial settlement approval conference (previously adjourned), the claimant was questioned by me about her current pain levels, medications and what if any physical tasks she was no longer able to undertake that she could do before the accident. She provided the following responses:

(a) she had no pain at that moment;

(b) she avoids heavy lifting (greater than 10kg) when shopping and at work;

(c) she is only able to carry heavy objects for short distances;

(d) she avoids carrying heavy objects because she feels pain when she does so;

(e) at work she was undertaking light duties, although she had not requested this;

(f) she would do some heavier work before the accident;

(g) she now did not consider she could do heavier work if requested to do so at work;

(h) she had been working as a packer for the past three years;

(i) she had only worked in a labouring role since leaving school;

(j) she arrived in Australia in 2013, but did not work for between seven to eight years;

(k) she last consulted her GP (Dr Bui) about her injuries from the accident in February 2025, and

(l) she last consulted a specialist at the request of the GIO on 1 August 2025, when she saw the Dr Frommer.

1. Having regard to the claimant's responses, I expressed reservations about the adequacy of the medical material in support of the settlement and the adequacy of the settlement, in so far as the amount offered for FEL of $32,571.63.
2. I indicated to the insurer that an IME with an orthopaedic surgeon should be arranged to provide a report addressing the following matters:

(a) WPI;

(b) whether there was a risk that the claimant's working life would be shortened, and

(c) the reasonableness of the claimant's self-regulation as to working and daily lifting restrictions.

1. I also gave some guidance to the insurer as to a range, on the basis of the responses provided by the claimant, that would be an appropriate amount for FEL. I indicated that a likely range was between $75,000 and $100,000 but noted the further IME may warrant a different range. This range was provided to give some guidance to the parties before the next conference when revisiting the settlement offer.
2. A further settlement approval was set down for 1 December 2025.

1. On 1 December 2025 it was noted the insurer had filed an ALAD and had provided

Dr Wallace's report dated 31 October 2025 and had revised its settlement offer for the FEL component, on 6 November 2025, increasing it to $75,000 (from the previous sum of $32,571.63). 2. The insurer was granted leave to file its amended bundle of settlement materials which included a revised and executed settlement deed dated 13 November 2025 (ALAD pp 60 - 61) and revised submissions. 3. The claimant was questioned about her understanding of the revised settlement offer, whether there was any coercion or duress in accepting the offer, that the settlement if approved would resolve her common law damages claim, she could have legal representation but has declined to do so and there were nil payments from Centrelink to be deducted. These matters are identified below. 4. I indicated I proposed to approve the settlement and would issue my determination in January 2026.

1. At the time of the accident the claimant was 42 years of age and employed as a packer at Multipack Ltd earning the sum of $1,786.34 per fortnight.
2. The claimant ceased working following the accident and was certified fit for pre-injury duties on 17 February 2025 by her GP and returned return to full-time pre-injury duties.
3. The insurer has allowed PEL of $12,428.37, the insurer calculated this amount on the following basis:

(a) the claimant was employed as a Packer earning $1,022.06 net per week (ALAD p 4);

(b) the insurer allowed a loss for the period from 17 December 2024 to

17 February 2025, a period of nine weeks, at $1022.06.00 net per week ($9,198.54) plus loss of superannuation at 11.5% ($1,057.83) (ALAD p 4), and

(c) the insurer made refundable tax payments in the sum of $2,172 (ALAD p 4).

1. The insurer has allowed for FEL in the amount of $75,000 following commentary by me about the adequacy of the previous sum allowed for this component at the first settlement conference, calculated by way of a buffer.

Deductions sought to be made by the insurer for weekly payments of statutory benefits

1. The insurer seeks to deduct from the settlement the amount of $14,201.03 for statutory payments made to date (ALAD pp 5, 55 and 63).
2. I am satisfied on the evidence the insurer is entitled to the deduction sought for the statutory payments made in the amount of $14,201.03.

1. Clause 14D(3)(b) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020 provides that the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) and the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines) apply to this application.
2. I have considered the relevant legislation, guidelines and procedural directions, as identified below, in making my decision.

"3.40 Effect of recovery of damages on statutory benefits

(1) If a person ('the claimant') recovers damages in respect of the death of or injury to a person caused by the fault of the owner or driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of the vehicle then (except to the extent that subsection (2) or (3) covers the case)

(b) the amount of any statutory benefits already paid under Division 3.3 in respect of the injury concerned is to be deducted from the damages (awarded or otherwise paid as a lump sum) and is to be paid to the person who paid the statutory benefits."

"6.23 Restrictions on settlement of claim for damages

(a) the claimant is represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal

(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

The Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021

1. Regulation 95 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 provides:

(1) If a claimant, who is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, and an insurer have agreed to a proposed damages settlement, the insurer must lodge an application for approval of a damages settlement under section 6.23 of the MAI Act, on behalf of both the claimant and the insurer, within 7 days of reaching the agreement.

"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) the proposed settlement satisfies the timing requirements in section 6.23(1) of the

(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, and

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

1. Clause 10 of the Personal Injury Commission's (Commission) Procedural Direction MA3 provides the Application must include:

(a) a deed of release;

(b) the amount of the proposed damages settlement, including a breakdown of the amount allowed for each head of damage and how each amount allowed has been calculated;

(c) the amount of any reductions in the proposed damages settlement including for contributory negligence or any other reduction, including brief reasons for that reduction and how any reductions have been calculated;

(d) the amount of any advance payments that the insurer has made in advance of the settlement and the dates of those advance payments, including brief reasons explaining why those advanced payments were made, and

(e) the evidence, documents and materials relevant to an assessment of the damages settlement including liability notices.

1. After reviewing the Application and its supporting documentation including the insurer's ALAD bundle, I am satisfied it complies with cl 10 of the Commission's Procedural Direction MA3, as the Application includes details:

(a) of the amount of the proposed settlement and a breakdown of the amount allowed for each head of damage (ALAD pp 55 - 56), and

(b) the total amount of deductions sought to be made from the settlement (ALAD p 56).

THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL CONFERENCES - 21 October and 1 December 2025

1. On 24 November and 1 December 2025, the claimant appeared at the first and second settlement approval conference by MS Teams assisted by an interpreter.
2. The claimant indicated at both conferences she was willing to accept the offers of settlement.
3. The claimant also acknowledged that she was aware she could retain a legal practitioner to assist but had declined to do so.
4. The claimant indicated she was aware that the settlement is a final resolution of her claim for damages arising from the accident and that no coercion or duress had been brought to bear on her to accept the settlement.
5. The claimant confirmed the observations as to her capacity to work without restrictions made by Dr Wallace in his report dated 31 October 2025 and there had been no deterioration in her condition.

1. When considering the provisions of s 6.23 of the MAI Act and cl 7.38 of the Guidelines along with the rules and practice directions of the Commission, in deciding whether to approve or not approve the claimant's settlement, I need to consider whether:

(a) the amount of the settlement is just, fair and reasonable (appropriateness), and

(b) the claimant understands the settlement and its terms and the effect of the settlement in ending his claim for common law damages (the claimant's understanding).

1. In RACQ Insurance Limited v Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (No 2) [2014] NSW SC 1126, the Court stated, when considering the issue of an appropriate damages award:

"It is a relationship of the award to the injury and its consequences ... which is to be proportionate ... It is not a matter to be resolved by reference to some norm or standard supposedly to be derived from a consideration of amounts awarded in a number of other specific cases ... The principle to be followed ... is that the amount of damages must be fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries received and disabilities caused. It is to be proportionate to the situation of the claimant ... and not to the situation of other parties in other actions, even if some similarity between their situations may be supposed to be seen. The judgment of a Court awarding damages is not to be overborne by what other minds have judged right and proper for other situations. It may be granted that a judge who is making such assessment will be aware of and give weight to current general ideas of fairness and moderation. But this general awareness is quite a different thing ...The awareness must be a product of general experience and not formed ad hoc by a process of considering particular cases and endeavouring ... to allow for differences between the circumstances of other cases and the circumstances of the case in hand." [Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968)119 CLR 118 per Barwick CJ, Kitto and Menzies JJ at paragraph 11].

1. The amount of the offer of settlement that I am asked to approve comprises a sum of $87,428.37 for both PEL and FEL.
2. I am satisfied that the amount of $87,428.37 is a just, fair and reasonable settlement of the claimant's common law claim considering all the legislation, circumstances and materials.

1. I am also satisfied the claimant understands this settlement will be a final resolution of her claim and that she can make no further claim for damages for economic loss.
2. I approve the settlement.

1. The proposed settlement of $87,428.37 is approved under sub-s 6.23(2)(b) of the MAI Act.
2. Pursuant to sub-s 3.40(1)(b) of the MAI Act, the insurer is entitled to deduct the sum of $14,201.03 from the proposed settlement sum by way of recovery for weekly payments of statutory benefits paid to the claimant under Division 3.3.