1. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in the sum of $600,000.

1. On 20 October 2022, Mr Sebastian Padovan (the claimant) was injured in motor bike crash whilst riding along the Boulevard, Miranda when a vehicle pulled out from a side street contrary to the traffic rules.
2. He collided head-on with the insured vehicle, hitting his right leg on the bumper of the car which flipped him over the car landing on his right heel.
3. Mr Padovan made a claim against AAI Limited t/as GIO (insurer) the insurer of the at fault vehicle for lump sum damages.
4. The insurer has wholly accepted liability for the claim for common law damages.
5. The insurer has accepted, pursuant to Division 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), Mr Padovan is entitled to payment of reasonable treatment and care for the rest of his life for his accident caused injuries.
6. Mr Padovan and the insurer have reached agreement as to settlement of the claim for damages.
7. Because Mr Padovan is not represented by a lawyer, the settlement must be approved in accordance with the Act.
8. The insurer has lodged the application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration.
9. The insurer and Mr Padovan have agreed he is entitled to damages for non-economic loss; past economic loss; taxation on paid benefits; and damages for future economic loss.

1. Approval of the settlement is required under s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with the requirements of the Act and Motor Accident Guidelines (Guidelines).
2. Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:

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

(b) Mr Padovan understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.

1. I have considered the documents provided with the insurer's application including, but not limited to, insurer's submissions, settlement communications, health care records and clinical notes, reports from rehabilitation medical experts, fitness certificate, payslips, income statements and notice of assessments, particulars and more recently, medical reports and certificates issued through the Personal Injury Commission (Commission).

1. Mr Padovan is 30 years old in July this year.
2. Following the crash, Mr Padovan was conveyed by ambulance to St George Hospital.
3. He came under the care of Dr Michael Symes, foot and ankle reconstruction orthopaedic surgeon. He was operated ORIF for right calcaneal (heel bone), fracture with 2 nails fixed in the area of heel semi-horizontally and stitches were done over the Achilles tendon (behind the heel) to repair the tendon rupture. Also, his left knee was operated on to insert a graft for a posterior collateral ligament injury.
4. He was reviewed by Dr Symes on 21 October 2023. The doctor described Mr Padovan injuries as nasty multiple lower leg injuries including abrasions in the pretibial region, along with an open fracture of his calcaneus which involved his tendo-Achilles insertion. In addition to this he had an anterior crush injury to his ankle joint and the tibial plafond.
5. Dr Symes closely monitored Mr Padovan's wounds. The doctor reviewed him six months after the crash and reported he was doing well and exceeded the doctor's expectations.
6. At the time of the accident, Mr Padovan was working with Underdown Productions as a motorcycle parts buyer in the film industry working on the set of the film Furiosa at Kurnell Beach. He was working 50 hours per week earning $1,400 net per week.
7. Mr Padovan's treating general practitioner certified him unfit to return to work until 13 April 2023 which was extended to 17 October 2023. His contract with Underdown Productions expired on 12 December 2022. He advised his rehabilitation provider he was not interested in returning to any positions with the production company due to a toxic work environment.
8. Subsequently, he was employed by Devine Network Solutions as an IT assistant on a full-time basis.

1. On receipt of the application of the proposed settlement agreement, I reviewed the documentation.
2. At the preliminary conference, I raised with the claimant and the insurer my concern that there was no whole person impairment (WPI) assessment by a qualified medical expert of Mr Padovan's injuries.
3. There was no concession by the insurer that Mr Padovan had any entitlement to damages for non-economic loss.
4. Although Mr Padovan has made an excellent recovery from his injuries, on review of the nature and extent of his injuries and scarring, I expressed my initial opinion that approval would not be considered by me without an assessment of his WPI.
5. I explained to Mr Padovan the process of an application to the Commission to have WPI assessed by an independent medical expert and if assessed greater than 10%, that he was entitled to damages for non-economic loss.
6. I further advised him that this process would delay consideration of the proposed settlement offer which he said he understood and that he was happy to attend appointments and wait for the assessment and certificate.
7. The insurer asked me to retain the application and if necessary, refer the application to the Stood Over List until the medical assessments in the Commission have been completed.
8. The insurer advised me via the Portal that a further assessment was necessary as the first medical assessor did not hold the necessary qualifications to assess scarring.
9. The application was returned to me for consideration of an updated offer of settlement and a further telephone conference was convened 22 May 2025.
10. I apologised to Mr Padovan for the delays with the medical assessments. He was happy with the outcome as the combined medical certificate issued by the Commission entitles him to damages for non-economic loss.
11. He confirmed he understood his entitlement to ongoing reasonable treatment expenses for his injuries.
12. Mr Padovan also confirmed he understood, if approved, the settlement was final.
13. The subsequent combined assessment of whole person impairment of 19% entitles Mr Padovan to damages for non-economic loss. The amount proposed for non-economic loss is $300,000.
14. The insurer proposed that the past assessment of economic loss is calculated as $100,000 which has been assessed in accordance with Mr Padovan's weekly earning pre-accident working 50 hours a week earning $1,400 per week net. This amount also takes into consideration the statutory past benefits paid in the amount of $73,039.15 plus taxation paid on these benefits of $15,703 when totalled is $98,503.65 which has been rounded up to $100,000.
15. For future economic loss, the insurer has proposed a buffer of $200,000. Although Mr Padovan has returned to full-time employment, he may have periods off work for further treatment as proposed by the medical assessors in the recent findings in their assessments.
16. The total amount proposed by the insurer for approval is $600,000 inclusive of paid statutory benefits.

1. The initial proposed settlement offer is an important reminder why the legislature contemplated circumstances where a claimant accepted an offer of settlement which is grossly inadequate when the nature and extent of injuries require proper assessment by experienced medical professionals.
2. The claimant is a young man. He worked in a stressful work environment requiring challenging activities involving long hours.
3. He was clearly keen to return to the workforce notwithstanding his multiple nasty lower leg injuries. His treating surgeon was surprised at his excellent progress which exceeded the doctor's expectations.
4. Nevertheless, on a thorough examination of the clinical notes and rehabilitation records, it was immediately apparent that this claimant was entitled to have his injuries assessed in the Commission.
5. The initial offer of settlement included amounts for past economic loss of $100,000, and future economic loos of $175,000 which totalled $275,000.
6. The submission relating the non-economic loss states the insurer made no allowance based on a report by Mr Hatziandreou, a rehabilitation physiotherapist.
7. Clearly, the claimant in this case necessitated the protection of having his offer of settlement reviewed by a Member in the Commission to ensure his entitlements are protected.

1. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the sensible approach adopted by the insurer representative in agreeing to lodge the necessary applications to the Commission to ensure Mr Padovan's injuries where adequately assessed and to assist him through the process which led to the substantially increased offer of settlement.
2. Mr Padovan told me he was very happy with the revised proposed settlement and was pleased his injuries were assessed in the Commission. He advised me since the crash, although he has ongoing restrictions, he has made an excellent recovery and eager to get back to his pre-accident life.
3. He understood he is entitled to legal representation but did not wish to engage a lawyer.
4. He further confirmed he understood the entitlement to an assessment of non-economic loss and agreed the amount of $300,000 is a reasonable sum. He also confirmed he understood his entitlement to past economic loss, superannuation, and paid taxation of statutory benefits which is to be deducted.
5. I am satisfied Mr Padovan is aware the settlement finalises his entitlements to further common law damages under the Act.
6. I am satisfied Mr Padovan is happy with the amount of $526,960.85 clear to him.
7. I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable. The settlement is within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by Mr Padovan.
8. I am satisfied Mr Padovan understands the binding nature of the settlement and that he is precluded from making a further claim for damages arising from the accident. I am satisfied Mr Padovan is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
9. Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act, I approve the settlement of

Mr Padovan's claim for damages in the sum of $600,000.