1. Rachel Bidner (the claimant) was involved in a motor accident on 1 May 2022 while she was travelling as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle being driven by her then-husband, Christopher Bidner, along New England Highway in Garoo, NSW.
2. The claimant contends the motorcycle approached and travelled through road works occurring on New England Highway when the motorcycle struck a large pothole on the road which caused the motorcycle to become airborne and land heavily on the road ("the accident"). The claimant claims serious injuries arose from the accident.
3. The claimant claims Mr Bidner was negligent in that he owed a duty of care to the claimant who was travelling on the back of his motorcycle, and that he breached that duty in failing to avoid or take proper care to avoid the pothole. The claimant submits that Mr Bidner's negligence in the operation of the motorcycle caused the injuries.

1. On 26 February 2024, the claimant lodged her Application for Personal Injury Benefits and her Application for Damages under Common Law against GIO, the relevant CTP insurer for the motorcycle.
2. On 17 July 2024, the insurer issued their liability notice post-52 weeks for the statutory benefits claim, stating that the claimant was not wholly or mostly at fault for the accident but denying liability on the basis of only sustaining a threshold injury.
3. On 25 March 2025, the certificate of Medical Assessor Ronald Gill was issued confirming the claimant's psychological injuries sustained in the accident were non-threshold injuries.
4. On or about 2 April 2025, the insurer lodged a review application of Medical Assessor Gill's certificate, which was accepted but as at today's date is yet to be determined.
5. On 15 April 2025, the claimant lodged an application for assessment of damages in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission).
6. On 28 May 2025, the insurer issued a liability notice denying liability for the claimant's common law damages claim on the basis that it alleges there was no breach of duty of care on the part of Mr Bidner.
7. On 3 June 2025, the certificate of Medical Assessor Drew Dixon was issued confirming that the claimant's physical injuries sustained in the accident were non-threshold injuries.
8. On 7 August 2025, the claimant wrote to GIO requesting a revised liability notice.
9. On 10 September 2025, the insurer by way of their solicitors affirmed the insurer's denial of liability by way of email. Due to an internal mail server issue, this correspondence was not received until 31 October 2025.
10. On 28 November 2025 the application for further medical assessment made by the insurer was accepted by the Commission. The further assessment has not been allocated as yet to a Medical Assessor.
11. The claimant has now referred the claim to the Commission seeking an exemption from assessment.
12. The claimant submitted that the matter should be exempt from assessment at the Commission pursuant to s 7.34 (1)(b) of the Act so that she can commence her claim against the insurer in the District Court of NSW and prevent two separate jurisdictions from determining liability arising out of the same set of circumstances.
13. The reply submissions received from the insurer dated 26 November 2025 support the claimant's application that the matter is unsuitable "principally because there are proceedings against a third party defendant commenced in the District Court and the matters should be heard together. There is no mechanism for this to take place in the Personal Injury Commission."

1. Section 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) provides that a claim is exempt from assessment if a Member has made a preliminary determination of the claim and has determined, with the approval of the President, that the claim is not suitable for assessment.
2. Rule 99(3) of the Rules sets out circumstances in which a claim may be found unsuitable for assessment as follows:

(a) whether the claim involves complex legal or factual issues, or complex issues in the assessment of the amount of the claim;

(b) whether the claim involves issues of liability, including contributory negligence, fault or causation;

(c) whether a claimant or witness, considered by the Commission to be a material witness, resides outside the State;

(d) whether a claimant or insurer seeks to proceed against one or more non-CTP parties, and

(e) whether the insurer alleges that a person has made a false or misleading statement in a material particular in relation to the injuries, loss or damage sustained by the claimant in the accident giving rise to the claim.

1. The list in rule 99(3) is not intended to limit the matters that may be considered by the Commission.
2. Rule 99(2) states the Commission must consider the objects of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) (which includes to promote public confidence in the decision-making of the Commission) and the circumstances of the claim.
3. Section 42 of the PIC Act outlines the guiding principle for the PIC Act and the Rules is to facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.
4. In accordance with s 43(2) of the PIC Act, the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in the manner the Commission thinks appropriate and as the proper consideration of the matter before the Commission permits.
5. This claim involves complex legal or factual issues, or complex issues in the assessment of the amount of the claim.
6. The claim involves issues of liability, including contributory negligence, fault or causation.
7. The claimant has issued proceedings in the District Court bearing case reference 2025/00408402 against Transport for New South Wales. This case was listing on 4 December 2025 for pre-trial conference. The next return date is 31 March 2026 and the parties hope to bring the matters into the same timeline.
8. The claimant seeks to have the current claim heard at the same time as the District Court proceedings against the third party. It would also be cost effectively dealt with in a single forum and avoid potential inconsistent determinations on liability should they not be heard together.
9. Noting the particular factual issues in relation to the question of liability and the various parties involved the provisions of r 99(3)(a), (b) and (d) are enlivened**.**

1. Having made a preliminary assessment of the claim, I determine for the reasons set out above that this claim is not suitable for assessment under s 7.34(1)(b) of the MAI Act and I recommend to the President that it be exempt from assessment.
2. In accordance with s 7.34(1)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, the Division Head (Motor Accident Division) as Delegate of the President, on 29 January 2026, approved Member Shana Radnan's recommendation that the claim is not suitable for assessment.