ASSESMENT OF DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT OF EARNING CAPACITY

Certificate issued under s 7.23 (1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act)

1. The Review Panel affirms the certificate of Medical Assessor Home dated 24 July 2024.
2. The Review Panel finds that the claimant does have a degree of impairment of earning capacity that has resulted from the injury caused by the motor accident.

1. Elizabeth Anderson (the claimant) is a 66-year-old woman who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 19 April 2022. Following the accident the claimant lodged an Application for personal injury benefits. Thereafter it was agreed between the parties that she had sustained threshold injuries. There has been no concession from Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (the insurer) that the claimant's injuries exceed 10% whole person impairment nor has there been any application to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) to have this issue determined.
2. A dispute arose between the parties as to the degree of impairment of earning capacity that has resulted from the accident. This matter was considered by Medical Assessor Alan Home on 11 July 2024 who issued a certificate on 24 July 2024 which found some functional restrictions arising from the injuries caused by the motor accident as well as residual capacity for the claimant to undertake other types of proposed work.
3. The medical dispute to be determined is the degree of impairment of earning capacity of the claimant that has resulted from the lumbar spine injury and right wrist injury caused by the motor accident.
4. The claimant lodged an application for review of this certificate and in a decision dated 14 August 2025 President's delegate, Tajan Baba, decided that there is a reasonable cause to suspect the medical assessment was incorrect in a material respect. The matter was then referred to this Medical Review Panel (Panel).
5. The Panel has issued directions for the uploading of material and is satisfied that all material, including all material which was before Medical Assessor Alan Home on 11 July 2024, is now before the Panel.

1. Clause 14F of Schedule 1 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (the PIC Act) provides that the new review provisions apply in relation to a decision of a new decision-maker. A "new decision maker" is defined in cl 14A(1) of the Schedule 1 of the PIC Act. As the medical assessment, the subject of the review, was made on or after 1 March 2021, the new review provisions apply.
2. The new review provisions provide that a review panel consists of two Medical Assessors and a Member assigned by the Motor Accidents Division of the Commission.
3. Part 5 of the PIC Act enables the Commission to make rules with respect to its practice and procedure including proceedings before a panel reviewing a decision of a Medical Assessor.
4. Rules 127 to 130 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) are made pursuant to Part 5 of the PIC Act. A review panel determines how it conducts and determines the proceedings and may determine the matter solely based on the written application.
5. The review of the medical assessment is by way of a new assessment of all the matters with which the medical assessment is concerned.
6. Section 17 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) defines a "medical dispute" as

(a) a dispute between a claimant and an insurer about a medical assessment matter, or

(b) an issue arising about a medical assessment matter in proceedings before a court for damages or in connection with the assessment of a claim by the Commission.

1. The whole of the Panel met with the claimant by Teams audiovisual link on 19 February 2026, having reviewed all the material before it, so as to clarify and confirm the claimant's history and ongoing impairments.

1. The claimant stated in the Application for personal injury benefits that she was not suffering an illness or injury to her right wrist, back or right shoulder prior to the subject accident. The material bears out that the claimant had previously sustained a rotator cuff tear to her right shoulder whilst working in 2013. She continued to receive treatment up to 2020. The Panel accepts that the claimant was otherwise well at the time of the subject accident.

1. The accident occurred at about 9.15am on 19 April 2022 at Mascot. The claimant's vehicle collided with a roadside barrier causing the vehicle to spin and strike the wheel guard of a rigid tanker.
2. The claimant was taken by ambulance to St Vincents Hospital where X-rays demonstrated a fracture of the distal right wrist radius and a fracture of the L2 vertebral body.

1. The claimant underwent and open reduction and internal fixation of her fractured right wrist by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Yeoh. She underwent further surgery on 6 October 2022 to remove the metal fixators in her right wrist.
2. The claimant underwent an assessment, being a request for treatment, on 13 June 2023. The clinical assessment identified ongoing impairment to her lumbar spine, right shoulder and right wrist. These impairments were variously described as pulling, gripping and a dull ache. Reduced flexion extension and rotation was identified to the lumbar spine, right shoulder and right wrist. Significant limits on her earning capacity were identified including lifting or carrying up to 3kg, restrictions on sitting or standing for over three hours, avoiding pushing pulling, bending, twisting or driving.
3. The report of Dr Wallace dated 24 July 2023, whilst not making any allowance consequent on her right shoulder rotator cuff tear, does state that the claimant has a guarded prognosis for further recovery of function at her right wrist or lumbar spine despite any ongoing treatment.
4. The claimant was assessed by Medical Assessor Mitchell on 13 November 2024. In reasons dated 2 December 2024, it was determined that "the right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and biceps tenodesis proposed by Docter Timothy Yeoh is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances". That is, that the ongoing symptoms in the right shoulder are sufficiently severe and consequently reduce the right arm function to a significant degree to justify interventional treatment of the nature recommended.
5. The Panel is satisfied that the material supports a finding of a significant right shoulder injury not withstanding a prior right shoulder injury in 2013, noting that the earlier injury involved a different tendon to that which requires arthroscopic repair as a consequence of the shoulder injury sustained in the subject motor accident.

1. The claimant is a 66-year-old woman who is 147cm in height and weighs approximately 50kg. She has identified numerous ongoing impairments including lifting with the right arm and right shoulder.
2. The claimant has provided material identifying ongoing restrictions for her employment including being unable to work full-time hours due to back pain, reduced tolerance for standing and sitting and a restriction on her ability to "maintain consistent physical activity across consecutive days".
3. The Panel accepts the claimant's description of the physical sequalae of the injuries sustained in the subject accident.

1. The claimant worked as a traffic controller at the time of the accident. She had been in this employment for about a year prior to the subject accident. Prior to this she had worked in a duty-free shop at Sydney International Airport and arranging shuttle transfers also at Sydney Airport.
2. The claimant's pre-accident employment can be reasonably described as obliging her to have a relatively high degree of physical fitness, including unimpaired standing tolerances, as well as a capacity for prolonged concentration and attention. The Panel accepts that the claimant would have difficulties with undertaking these activities at this time as a direct consequence of the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident.
3. A vocational assessment of the claimant was undertaken by OT Rehab. The final report dated 20 September 2023 confirms the physical restrictions and suggests that she is currently fit for eight hours work three days per week.

1. The claimant was terminated from her pre-injury employer on 24 January 2023. Following the termination of her employment, she did undertake some work as an exam supervisor at the University of New South Wales.
2. More recently she has returned to traffic control duties as a casual contractor, with variable days and hours of work.

1. The Panel is satisfied that the claimant has an ongoing physical impairment which significantly impedes her capacity to perform work, not only as a traffic controller, but also, at least to some degree, in any other vocations for which she has previously worked.
2. These included work in the retail sector, clerical work and, as outlined above, as a traffic controller. These restrictions include the identified restrictions of working eight hours per day but not on consecutive days. The restrictions would also require regular work breaks, avoidance of repetitive or prolonged use right upper limb, alterations to her usual employment duties and, consequently, can be reasonably inferred to give rise to an impairment of earning capacity which goes beyond simply a reduction of 40% in her working hours.
3. The impairment of the claimant's earning capacity is assessed at 50%.