The application records Ms Molnar was off work for "4 days +" for hand therapy. Details of Ms Molnar's work are provided, including her role and earnings.
The claim for damages was made on 9 December 2024. The claim form does not contain relevant additional information.
A report from Ms Mills, hand therapist, dated 8 October 2024 records that Ms Molnar reported "a general improvement" in her finger discomfort. She experiences transient pain when her finger is knocked. She also reported forearm discomfort that was possibly contributed to by overactive little finger extensors and repetitive tasks performed in her work. Ms Molnar had returned to her baseline capacity at work. She had engaged well in hand physiotherapy and can perform her exercises independently. No further physiotherapy sessions had been planned.
Ms Molnar's patient records from DMC Medical Centre include progress notes. The first entry is dated 28 November 2024 and refers to a left knee injury at work as a result of a fall. I have considered all the matters referred to in the notes recorded on 23 January 2025 including the reference to a left little finger injury. The other entries in the progress notes have been considered as have the radiological reports contained in the notes.
The application includes Ms Molnar's response to the insurer's request for particulars dated 10 January 2025. The only injuries referred to are a fractured left little finger and right hip bruising. The particulars include details of Ms Molnar's pre-accident health, post-accident symptoms and treatment, and employment details. It is recorded that Ms Molnar had lost sick leave due to the time she had off work after the accident. In that regard, she had "about" one and a half to two weeks off work due to pain and obtaining treatment. There are also pay slips from Ms Molnar's employer, and an email dated 18 July 2024 that includes details of her employment and the time she had off work after the accident. The application also contains income statements for the financial years 2019-20, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24.
Dr Bentivoglio, orthopaedic surgeon, reported to the insurer on 16 June 2025. The doctor examined Ms Molnar on 10 June 2025. The doctor recorded that Ms Molnar was left-handed. He took a history that she injured her left little finger as a result of an incident on a bus. She reported significant swelling and pain in the finger with some bruising and attended hospital the following day. An X-ray indicated a small fracture of the PIP joint of her little finger. Her finger was splinted. The splint remained in situ for six weeks. She had physiotherapy, which she thought was of some benefit.
Dr Bentivoglio recorded that Ms Molnar was off work for two weeks following the accident. When she returned to work, she started to experience pain in her left forearm as a result of the way she was typing. There were no investigations and the pain settled after she regained full movement in her little finger. Ms Molnar was not having any active treatment. She reported that she continued to cope with her pre-injury duties.
Ms Molnar reported occasionally having pain in the PIP joint with certain activities. She particularly notices pain when drying her hands. She is able to make a tight fist and feels she has regained full movement in her little finger. She does not notice significant swelling. There had been no recent improvement. Ms Molnar reported being able to drive her automatic car, clean the car and undertake household duties.
[2]
The doctor's findings on examination have been considered. Among other things, Ms Molnar was able to completely straighten the DIP, PIP and MCP joints in her little finger and had full flexion of those joints. There was no muscle wasting in her forearm. Right grip strength was greater than left.
Dr Bentivoglio diagnosed a fracture of the volar plate of the PIP joint in the left little finger. Treatment had been appropriate. In the doctor's opinion Ms Molnar had regained "essentially" full function in her left hand although she had less grip strength in her dominant left hand. No further treatment was indicated. She had minor symptoms in the PIP joint. There was a risk of degenerative changes developing in the "distant" future. Her prognosis was "somewhat guarded" because of the increased chance of degenerative changes developing. The doctor was doubtful that any specific treatment will be required if this eventuates.
Dr Bentivoglio stated that he "would not anticipate" the injury will cause any incapacity for work in the future and that he did not believe Ms Molnar will have any restrictions or reduction in her earning capacity. She had "some minor impairment" of grip strength. However, there was no way of assessing the impairment.
The doctor recorded Ms Molnar was "coping reasonably well" with home activities. In his opinion her injuries have not caused any "disturbance of functionality in regard to her activities of daily living, domestic assistance/care and no problems with personal care."
The insurer has also filed its request for particulars dated 26 November 2025 and Ms Molnar's reply dated 28 November 2025. The particulars relate to the care Ms Molnar received following the accident. In her response to the request for particulars, Ms Molnar recorded that after the accident she was provided with assistance by her brother and sister-in-law with daily tasks such as personal care, cooking, cleaning, ironing, shopping and rubbish removal.
Ms Molnar confirmed that the assistance she was provided by her family members after the accident "came to a halt" when she became ill with covid in December 2024. She had never paid for any assistance.
[3]
The insurer relies on submissions dated 6 May 2024 in support of the application for approval of the settlement. The submissions include relevant background to the claim and a summary of the medical evidence.
A summary of the claimant's time off work is recorded at [7.4]. At [8] a breakdown of the insurer's offer is provided. It is recorded at [8.1] that no wage payments have been made by the insurer and that no deductions will be made to the settlement.
[4]
As a result of the accident Ms Molnar suffered bruising that has resolved and a fracture of the PIP joint of her left little finger. She is left hand dominant. The grip strength in her left hand is less than in her right hand. Ms Molnar continues to experience some symptoms in her left little finger. She has returned to her full pre-injury duties, is not receiving treatment and none is planned. She is at risk of developing degenerative changes in the left little finger.
I am satisfied the allowance for past economic loss reflects Ms Molnar's loss to date. The allowance for future economic loss is reasonable and appropriate.
I am satisfied on the evidence before the Commission that if her claim was assessed Ms Molnar would not be entitled to damages for non-economic loss because her permanent impairment as a result of the injury caused by the accident is not greater than 10%. I consider it unlikely Ms Molnar would satisfy the s 141B(3). That being the case, if her claim were assessed she would not be awarded damages for past gratuitous care. She has never paid for domestic assistance is not likely to require paid assistance in the future. Her treatment expenses have been paid by the insurer and will not be deducted from the settlement.
I accept Dr Bentivoglio's opinion that, in the event degenerative changes develop in the left little finger, Ms Molnar is not likely to require any specific treatment. The insurer agrees that Ms Molnar retains her rights under Div 3.4 of the MAI Act. I have approved the settlement on the basis of this agreement.
I have considered the proposed draft deed prepared by the insurer. As discussed earlier, clauses 5(b), 8 and 9 are to be removed from the final version of the deed that is to be signed by Ms Molnar.
[5]
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 Ms Molnar as a result of the accident. There are no reductions or deductions to the proposed settlement.
I am satisfied Ms Molnar understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and wants to accept the proposed settlement.
Having considered the material provided by the insurer, and what Ms Molnar told me on the two occasions the settlement approval was listed, the proposed settlement is approved.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
Respondent/Defendant:
Molnar [2025] NSWPIC 646;
Legislation Cited (2)
Accident Injuries Act 2017
Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Cases Cited (2)
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Molnar [2025] NSWPIC 646; (2 December 2025)
The attention of the parties was drawn to the Court of Appeal's decision in McTye v Ching Yu Chang by his tutor Leo Alexander Birch[2025] NSWCA 3 (Chang). Ms Wyatt confirmed the bus in question was a "Government bus". That being the case, Ms Molnar's entitlements to damages are governed by Chapter 5 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (MAC Act) and not Part 4 of the MAI Act.
The insurer was asked to consider whether a number of clauses in the deed were required[1].
Ms Wyatt sought an opportunity to obtain instructions with respect to Chang and the deed. The approval was stood over to 1 December 2025 to allow her to do so.
The approval was listed again on 1 December 2025. Ms Wyatt confirmed that clauses 5(b), 8 and 9 would be removed from the deed.
Ms Wyatt also confirmed the insurer agreed that Chang applied. It was explained to Ms Molnar that as Chang applied, other heads of damage were potentially available under Chapter 5 of the MAC Act, namely treatment and care, and that no allowance had been made for either in the proposed settlement.
Ms Molnar's treatment costs to date have been paid by the insurer. She has not paid for any domestic assistance or care. Although she was provided with some care by members of her family for a number of months after the accident, she was not able to confirm whether the care provided amounted to at least six hours a week. Further, the care ceased approximately six months after the accident.
Ms Molnar confirmed that other than help taking out the bins once a week she did not receive or require any domestic assistance. She also confirmed she was not receiving any treatment, and none was proposed.
Ms Molnar was aware that any potential entitlement to damages for past gratuitous care was not likely to exceed a period of six months. She was also aware that no allowance had been made for non-economic loss, past or future care, or past and future treatment expenses. She wanted the proposed settlement approved despite no allowances being made for these heads.
The insurer agreed that if the settlement was approved Ms Molnar would still be entitled to statutory benefits for treatment and care under Div 3.4 of the MAI Act.