1. The proposed settlement in the sum of $150,000 is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.

1. Guru Shyam Mantramurthy (the claimant) is a 41-year-old male who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8 December 2021. At the time of the accident, the claimant was employed full-time as an IT manager with Foxtel.
2. On 8 December 2021, the claimant was driving his vehicle along Windsor Road. He stopped at traffic lights at the intersection of Windsor Road and Kellyville Road, Kellyville. When the traffic light turned green, the claimant began accelerating across the intersection. At that time, the insured driver travelling in the opposite direction deviated from her lane into the lane the claimant was travelling causing her vehicle to collide with his.
3. The claimant did not require transport via ambulance or attend hospital. However, the following day he sought medical attention from his general practitioner who subsequently referred him for physiotherapy. He also sought treatment from Starlight Psychology and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
4. The claimant alleges that he suffered the following injuries in the accident. Musculoskeletal strain of the cervical spine, right shoulder soft tissue injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. The insurer admitted liability in full for the common law claim on 17 April 2024.
5. As the claimant is not legally represented, the proposed settlement requires approval by a Member of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission).

1. When the claimant consulted his general practitioner (GP), he complained of pain in his cervical spine and right shoulder and was referred for physiotherapy.
2. The claimant underwent radiological investigations and returned to work two days later on his pre-injury duties.
3. Pain in the cervical spine and left upper a limb continued and the claimant was referred to Dr Kam (spinal surgeon) on 10 March 2022. He was then referred for a cortisone injection in the left C6 perineural space on 11 March 2022 which gave good relief for approximately two months.
4. The claimant returned to see Dr Kam who recommended surgical intervention. However, the claimant declined this.
5. The claimant underwent a Neuropsychological Assessment completed by Dr Alex Falcom. He reported on 1 August 2022 and concluded that the claimant demonstrated normal cognitive abilities. However, he thought the claimant would benefit from ongoing physical and psychological treatment.
6. The claimant was then referred to Dr Alan Nazha, pain specialist. In his report dated 25 August 2022, Dr Nazha noted that it would be worthwhile obtaining a Nerve Conduction Study, as well as an MRI of the brachial plexus. The Nerve Conduction Study was completed on 23 September 2023 and noted that there was a mild left sided ulnar nerve dysfunction at the level of the elbow. However, no neuropsychological evidence of left sided cervical nerve root dysfunction or brachial plexus dysfunction. The MRI of the brachial plexus report dated 23 September 2022 noted an unremarkable study of the left brachial plexus.
7. The claimant also underwent psychological treatment.
8. At the initial preliminary conference in this matter, I expressed some concern regarding the absence of updated medical evidence from the claimant's treating practitioners as it dated back to 2022 and 2023.
9. Subsequently, the insurer approved further ongoing treatment to support the claimant's recovery.
10. The claimant returned to the care of Dr Alan Nazha. Dr Nazha prescribed a diagnostic injection to the left dorsal scapular nerve which unfortunately did not result in significant symptom relief. The claimant was also provided with a BioWaveGO topical neuromodulation device designed to deliver high frequency electrical nerve stimulation targeting deeper tissues to promote longer term pain reduction. Dr Nazha advised that optimal benefit may take time to achieve and confirmed his availability to review the claimant should any ongoing issues arise.
11. Subsequently, I was provided with a report by Dr Nazha to Dr Ravneet Kaur whom I understand to be the claimant's GP dated 17 November 2025.
12. In that report Dr Nazha opined:

"I reiterated that a surgical review by Dr Kam remains important and encouraged him to proceed with that application.

Given his preference for non-procedural options, I will request approval for BioWaveGO therapy. This TGA registered and FDA cleared device delivers high frequency electrical stimulation via non-invasive surface electrodes and has been shown to provide deeper and longer lasting analgesia compared to conventional TENS. Each session lasts approximately 30 minutes and can be performed independently at home. It is a safe, non-drug based and cost effective option intended to reduce pain, improve function and lessen medication reliance."

1. As will be noted later, the claimant is not prepared to undergo surgical intervention.
2. The claimant also engaged in a treatment programme recommended by the Movement Clinic. That treatment, which is ongoing, consists of manual therapy and exercise-based interventions aimed at reducing cervical spine symptoms and improving sitting tolerance.
3. The claimant again consulted Starlight Psychology which in a report dated 5 July 2025 records that the claimant had demonstrated notable improvement in his overall psychological functioning. He no longer met the diagnostic criteria of post-traumatic stress disorder and there had been a significant reduction in anxiety symptoms and general psychological distress.
4. I add that in a report dated 10 March 2022, Dr Andrew Kam, neurosurgeon, recommended:

"Because Mr Mantramurthy feels that his pain is significant enough to require ongoing treatment, I have suggested for him to undergo a left sided C5/6 foraminal block to try and reduce his pain and improve his quality of life. With regard to his neck pain, this is consistent with a soft tissue whiplash injury which requires an intensive amount of treatment"

1. The insurer arranged for the claimant to be examined by Dr Stephen Rimmer, orthopaedic surgeon, and Dr Russell Davies, psychiatrist.
2. Dr Rimmer reported on 12 December 2024. In that report, Dr Rimmer noted that an MRI scan dated 23 December 2022 showed no abnormality. Further, an MRI scan of the right shoulder on the same date showed mild AC joint degenerative arthritis.
3. Dr Rimmer concluded that the claimant had suffered a musculoskeletal strain of the cervical spine which had resolved and a soft tissue injury to the right shoulder which had resolved.
4. Dr Rimmer concluded that there was no incapacity for work as he said, supported by the fact that the claimant only lost two days from work. He also opined that no future treatment was required.
5. Dr Davies reported on 6 February 2025. In that report, he provides the following summary:

In summary, Mr Mantramurthy is a 40 year old gentleman who was seen today by this assessor on the first occasion for the purposes of an independent medicolegal examination via the telehealth platform of Zoom. Mr Mantramurthy describes an emergent of symptoms consistent with that of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder following the road traffic accident in 2021. Over that time, there has been some attenuation of his symptoms. However, he does have some residual PTSD phenomena, albeit to a lesser degree.

He has engaged in care in the past encompassing contact with a psychologist and found this work to be useful. At the time of writing, I understand he has not currently engaged in psychiatric or psychological care, but I understand there is the option open to him to return any time. He does not describe any background of significant pre-existing mental health morbidity."

1. Dr Davies noted that the claimant was maintaining full-time employment, albeit with some shift towards working from home rather from an office. Although he was working in the office two days a week, he believed that the claimant had, albeit with some modification, a full capacity to maintain his pre-injury employment.
2. Nevertheless, Dr Davies thought that the claimant would benefit from the continued support of a psychologist around trauma-informed paradigms of treatment care and recovery.
3. Both Drs Rimmer and Davies assessed the claimant injuries within their respective specialities, as threshold injuries.

1. Of necessity, there have been several preliminary conferences in this matter. At the outset, I note that the claimant informed me that he was aware that he was entitled to legal representation but preferred to self-represent.
2. At the first preliminary conference, as is noted above, I was concerned about the lack of current medical assessment by the claimant's treating practitioners. This was particularly so as the claimant informed me that he was continuing to have symptoms of pain in his neck and shoulder and some psychological disturbance.
3. In the circumstances, the insurer agreed to fund cost of reassessment and any additional treatment by the treating doctors.
4. At the next preliminary conference, I was informed of the nature of the treatment that the claimant had undergone but the medical reports were not available.
5. At a further preliminary conference, some reports were available. The claimant maintained that he was suffering the ongoing symptoms in relation to his neck and shoulder, although the psychological symptoms were not as concerning as they had been. He continued to use the BioWaveGO device which provided some relief. Importantly, he informed me that Dr Kam had recommended surgery but he did not intend to undergo such surgery as there was no guarantee that it would be successful in alleviating his symptoms. He understood however that if the settlement was approved, the option for future treatment remained open if it could be established that it was reasonably necessary as a result of injuries suffered in the accident.
6. The claimant continued to work full-time, although mostly from home. Of concern was that the calculation for past economic loss was approached by way of a buffer as the claimant had not provided any information from his employer to substantiate his claim. The claimant maintained that he had provided the information.
7. In the circumstances, although it resulted inevitably in a further delay, I provided the claimant with the opportunity to make that financial information available to the insurer and scheduled a further preliminary conference.
8. At the final preliminary conference, the insurer acknowledged that they had received details of the claimant's actual earnings dating from the financial year ending 2018. It is apparent from those records that in the financial year ending 30 June 2020, the claimant earned $157,346. That has progressively increased annually and in the financial year ending 30 June 2025, the claimant earned $174,943.

1. The only evidence before me suggests that the claimant suffered threshold injuries and as such is not entitled to any damages for non-economic loss. He informed me that he does not wish to undergo any surgery and would prefer settlement of his claim to be considered now. There remains a claim for past and future economic loss.
2. I have been provided with three sets of submissions by the insurer. In the original submissions, the suggested sum for past economic loss was $15,000. In the most recent submission after analysis and analysis of the claimant's earnings records, the insurer has arrived at a new figure of $20,000. That figure is made up of sum of $6,500 calculated for an initial two weeks off work based on the claimant's average weekly earnings. In addition to that sum, a buffer allowance of $13,500 has been included to account for additional time lost due to ongoing treatment and care beyond the initial period identified in a Certificate of Fitness. I consider that to be a reasonable approach.
3. In the circumstances of this case, any allowance for future economic loss can only be approached by way of awarding a buffer.
4. In its initial assessment, the insurer submitted that the appropriate sum for a buffer for future economic loss was $50,000. In support of that submission, the insurer referred to the reports of Drs Rimmer and Davis, noting that they did not consider the claimant's physical or psychological injuries arising from the accident would have any impact on the claimant's earning capacity into the future.
5. In its most recent submission, the insurer has increased its assessment for future economic loss to $130,000. The insurer again refers to the opinions of Drs Rimmer and Davis and the fact that the claimant has successfully returned to full-time employment and has maintained this for a sustained period.
6. Notwithstanding this position, the insurer acknowledges that the claimant may require periodic time off work to continue necessary treatment and rehabilitation. In support of its submission, the insurer notes that the allowance of $130,000 has been calculated on the basis of one day off per month over several years. This again appears to be a reasonable alternative approach.
7. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the total proposed settlement of $150,000 is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim or 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.
8. I am satisfied that the claimant understands that he is entitled to be represented in respect of the claim by an Australian legal practitioner and does not wish to be represented. I am also satisfied that the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement sum.
9. I note that the claimant is aware that he is entitled to claim for the cost of ongoing medical treatment and domestic assistance if such treatment is determined to be reasonably necessary.
10. Having considered all the material available, I am satisfied that the proposed settlement should be approved.