1. Liability for the claim is admitted.
2. In accordance with s 7.36 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, I assess the amount of damages for this claim as $1,510,323.
3. The insurer is to pay the claimant's costs and disbursements in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and Regulations.
4. Attached to this certificate are reasons for my assessment.

1. [BPX] (claimant) has made a claim for damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act) on Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (insurer). The claim relates to physical and psychological injuries sustained as a result of a high-speed head-on motor vehicle accident at Blakehurst on 5 September 2020 (accident). Liability for the claim has been admitted.
2. The claim has been referred to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for assessment of damages under Div 7.6 of the MAI Act. The claimant seeks awards for non-economic loss, past economic loss and future economic loss.
3. The claimant's entitlement to an award for past economic loss is disputed. While it is agreed she is entitled to damages for non-economic loss and future economic loss there is a dispute about the amount that should be awarded for these heads.

1. The proceedings were listed for assessment hearing on 11 December 2025. Mr Daley, of counsel, appeared for the claimant and Mr Wilson, of counsel, appeared for the insurer.
2. The claimant gave evidence and was cross examined. No other witnesses were called or required for cross examination.
3. The claimant sought and was given leave to rely on page one of her 16 November 2020 statement, that page having been unintentionally omitted from the joint bundle.
4. Counsel helpfully identified the matters that were agreed and refined the scope of the matters in dispute. The insurer confirmed there was no dispute the claimant suffered significant injuries as a result of the accident, both physical and psychological. Although the delayed onset of back and neck symptoms was raised by the insurer, it was not disputed the claimant suffered injuries to these regions as a result of the accident. There was a dispute about the diagnosis of the neck and back injuries, the insurer's case being the claimant suffered soft tissue injuries and the claimant arguing she suffered disc injuries.
5. Mr Daley confirmed the claimant does not allege she suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the accident. Her case is that while she did suffer an injury to her head, that injury has resolved.

1. In so far as non-economic loss is concerned the dispute is about the appropriate sum to be awarded. There is no dispute the claimant's accident caused injuries give rise to a loss of capacity to earn. Nor is there a dispute that her accident caused loss of capacity is, or is likely to be, productive of financial loss in the future. The insurer agreed the claimant is entitled to an award for future economic loss.
2. There is a dispute about whether the claimant's loss of capacity has given rise to past financial loss, the insurer's case being that there is no loss and no award should be made.
3. Finally, it is agreed there is no entitlement to s 4.5(1)(d) damages, no payments of weekly statutory benefits having been made.
4. Other than with respect to the matters discussed below, the parties concluded their oral submissions.
5. The claimant sought leave to rely on the Crown Employees (Teachers in Schools and Related Employees) Salaries and Conditions Award 2024 (Award). Objection was taken by the insurer. Further, the insurer's position was that if the Award was admitted into evidence it may seek to rely on a Vocational Capacity Centre report it had received that day, its initial position being that it would not seek leave to rely on the report. In circumstances where Mr Wilson had neither read nor considered the report, he sought an opportunity to do so and obtain further instructions.
6. In these circumstances the hearing was unable to conclude. The proceedings were set down for a case management conference to give the parties an opportunity to exchange further evidence and consider their respective positions.

1. A case management conference was conducted on 15 December 2025. Mr Daley and Mr Wilson appeared. The insurer's objection to the claimant relying on the Award was not pressed. Leave was granted to the claimant to file and rely on the Award.
2. The insurer was given leave to rely on reports from the Vocational Capacity Centre dated

11 December 2025. There was no objection by the claimant to the insurer relying on the report. 3. The parties were given leave to file a bundle containing the Award, the VCC reports, and relevant material from the clinical records referred to in the index to the joint bundle at R36 - R41. 4. The proceedings were listed for further oral submissions.

1. The proceedings were listed by AVL on 18 December 2025 to allow the parties to address the additional evidence filed in accordance with the directions made on 15 December 2025.
2. At the conclusion of oral submissions directions were made with respect to the provision of a memorandum setting out net weekly earnings by reference to the gross earnings in the VCC report and the Award, together with brief written submissions addressing the additional buffer sought by the claimant for loss of opportunity.

1. The documentary evidence relied on by the parties consists of a joint bundle and a supplementary bundle filed on 16 December 2025. In total the bundles comprise just over 630 pages. The evidence referred to by the parties in their oral and written submissions has been considered: rule 67D(2) Personal Injury Commission Rules (Rules).
2. As recorded earlier, the claimant gave evidence and was cross examined. My impression of her as a witness is addressed later in these reasons.

1. In addition to her oral evidence, the claimant relies on two statements, the first dated 16 November 2020 and the second dated 27 October 2025.

1. The claimant's first statement was made just over two months after the accident, more than five years ago. Since that time, she has completed the HSC and undertaken four years of university studies.
2. In this statement the claimant described her pre-accident schooling, her academic performance, her sporting pursuits and her leisure activities, and her relationship with members of her family and friends. She stated that she wanted to be a teacher or a lawyer, and that she felt "a bit torn between the two options".
3. At [23]-[26] the claimant describes events earlier on the day of the accident. Her description of these events provides a window into her pre-accident life. She had played in a semi-finals game with her netball team. Her team having won the game she was expecting to play in a grand final. After the game the claimant spent time with her family before going out with friends. She was to prepare desert for a Father's Day barbecue the next day. The accident occurred when she was on her way home, having dropped off her friends. She was playing "chilled music" softly, explaining that the music helped her focus on driving.

1. At [28]-[29] the claimant described the accident and at [30] she provided the following account of the aftermath:

"[30] I was trapped in my car, by the accident. The airbags had activated. The car body was crumpled around me. I saw my father and heard him screaming. I felt sheer terror, being trapped in my car, knowing I was injured, unable to move or leave the vehicle without assistance, and feeling excruciating pain, mingled with daze and shock."

1. Later in the statement the claimant addressed her injuries and treatment. She stated that the pain she experienced during hospital treatment was "excruciating" and "almost more than [she] could endure". The claimant described ongoing pain, numbness and tingling. The pain from her leg injury was the worst. The scarring was "significant and unsightly". She experienced difficulty sitting, standing, and walking, and her sleep was disturbed by pain.
2. At [36] the claimant described the impact of her abdominal injuries and at [37] her psychological injuries and symptoms. She states that she "lost [her] dignity and pride" as a result of the accident. She described feeling a sense of "overwhelming shock and sometimes despair". She felt "flat, sad, angry and numb". She has difficulty concentrating. The matters addressed at [40]-[49] of the statement have all been considered.

1. The claimant's second statement was made on 27 October 2025, nearly five years after her first statement. The statement addresses the claimant's injuries and treatment and includes details of the various specialists to whom she has been referred. The claimant describes the assistance she required when she was discharged from hospital. She continues to see her general practitioner (GP) and a psychologist. She takes pain medication. She only stopped having physiotherapy because the insurer ceased her treatment. I take this to mean the insurer denied liability to make ongoing payments of statutory benefits for the treatment.
2. The claimant states that she continues to experience pain in her neck, back, left wrist and right leg, which is "more in the hip and knee". She states that she has back pain "all the time" and that the pain increases if she does anything that "stresses" her back too much such as standing or sitting for too long. She is unable to lift, bend or carry "too much or for too long". Housework increases back pain.
3. At [17] the claimant describes ongoing problems with her neck, including pain and radiating symptoms into her arms and fingers. Using a computer makes her neck and arm symptoms worse.

1. The left wrist pain "comes and goes". She has trouble lifting, gripping and typing. By way of example, she has trouble lifting a full water bottle.
2. The claimant states that pain in her right leg is "almost always there". The pain is mainly in her right hip and knee. Walking and standing cause pain, as does long periods maintaining fixed positions, including sitting. She is unable to run and has not been able to return to any form of sport that involves her being on her legs or moving quickly.
3. At [22] and in her oral evidence, the claimant described the impact of her abdominal injuries. She has to be careful with her diet and needs to be close to a bathroom after eating. These injuries cause pain, discomfort, and embarrassment.
4. The claimant is undertaking a double degree specialising in physical education and religious studies. At [24] she described difficulties she has experienced undertaking the physical aspects of her course. At [25] she refers to difficulties she has experienced studying. Her concentration and memory have been affected. Pain makes this worse. She has been given dispensations with respect to physical aspects of her university course and in exams. She does not think she could work full time as a PE teacher. She is hoping to secure a casual role that involves only classroom teaching. She states she is hoping to work in a position that allows her to use her religious studies major.
5. The claimant states she has trouble sleeping, avoids driving, becomes overwhelmed around people and in crowds, lacks energy and motivation, and is always tired. She finds it hard to get out of bed some days, is fatigued and lacks energy, motivation and ambition. She feels low, flat and fragile, and experiences panic attacks. She is easily distracted and has difficulty focusing. Her temperament has changed; she has become easily irritated, angry and irritable. This, she observes, is "not a good problem to have as a school teacher as students are prone to test you."
6. The claimant's statement addresses her performance at school and her subsequent university education. She was offered early entry into her present double degree based on her year 11 results. The double degree she is undertaking is a four and a half year course that will qualify her to be a high school teacher. She plans to finish that course but is concerned about obtaining a position as a PE teacher given her physical limitations. She thinks she will be at a "grave disadvantage" when applying for such a role. The claimant states that she is concerned about how she will cope dealing with students and parents. She has experienced problems with teaching placements she has undertaken as part of her university studies.

1. The claimant states that before the accident she had been planning to study law. She states that after the accident she was not emotionally able to cope with "a difficult course such as a law course" and that her marks did not qualify her to "get into one of the better universities to study it". She accepted the early offer of the double degree she is currently studying because it provided certainty and she did not think she could cope with the demands of a law course and "even less so cope with the demands of working as a lawyer."
2. The claimant states that after the accident she worked briefly in a retail job for four months. She has not worked since. Her evidence is that had the accident not occurred she would have worked in part-time retail or hospitality jobs while she was at university and full-time during university vacations.
3. Annexed to the claimant's statement is an account of the impact the claimant's injuries have on her activities of daily living. This document describes in detail the functional impact the claimant's injuries have had on her, both physically and psychologically. The impact of the scarring is also addressed.

1. As recorded earlier, the claimant gave oral evidence at the hearing. She confirmed that her earlier statements were true and correct. Mr Daley asked the claimant about the circumstances in which she obtained a certificate of capacity dated 6 November 2025. She explained that after working at a school the day before she was "extremely exhausted" and went to see her doctor. The certificate was produced by the doctor at that appointment. With reference to the certification, the claimant gave evidence that if she tries to do anything for longer than four hours she experiences back, hip and knee pain, together with mental fatigue and exhaustion. She struggles to comprehend what is going on around her and to keep awake.
2. The claimant was also asked by Mr Daley about the circumstances in which she made a mobility parking application. The claimant explained that when attending appointments, she had difficulties if required to walk long distances from where she parked her car. Her evidence was that walking long distances exhausted her and caused hip and knee pain.
3. The claimant gave evidence that she is required to undertake one further 35-day period of practical teaching as part of her Bachelor of Education. I accept her evidence in this regard.
4. The claimant gave evidence about attending a counsellor prior to the accident and surgery to her left cruciate ligament. Her evidence, that I accept, is that she ceased the counselling because she didn't need it anymore and that she made a full recovery from the surgery and returned to playing sport.
5. The claimant gave evidence that at the time of the accident she was "pretty active". She was playing netball, attending the gym and playing school sport. She did not require treatment for any prior physical problems.
6. In cross examination the claimant gave evidence that while she did some driving post-accident she was restricted. She drove limited distances, such as to university and her boyfriend's house, some 15 minutes away. She also drives to the gym.
7. The claimant gave evidence about the requirements of her university degrees, including the credit points she was required to complete. She confirmed that if she graduates with a Bachelor of Education, she is able to teach in disciplines other than the two she has majored in, PDHPE (Personal Development, Health and Physical Education) and religious education. She explained that the PDHPE subject matter included both practical and theoretical elements. She also gave evidence about the Bachelor of Exercise Science degree she was studying. The claimant confirmed that her degree covers year 7 to year 12. Although she would like to work in a high school, she was open to working in a primary school.
8. The claimant agreed that she had a good relationship with her boyfriend of two years, her friends and family. She has been on a cruise with members of her family and enjoyed the experience. Since the accident she has taken up yoga. The claimant said she goes to the beach but does not enjoy it.
9. The claimant confirmed that she still sees a psychologist. She sees her GP regularly. She is not taking anti-depressant medication although she is open to doing so, explaining that in the past she had not wanted to take antidepressant medication because she did not want to experience the side effects and did not want to become dependent on "those types of medication". She was now open to taking anti-depressant medication because she thought the therapy was not helping. The claimant gave evidence that she was taking prescription medication and an anti-inflammatory for her physical injuries, together with over-the-counter pain killing medication (Nurofen), which she takes "most days".
10. The claimant was cross examined about the onset of her neck and back pain. She agreed that the absence of any reference to neck and back pain in her first statement meant that she was not at that time experiencing symptoms.
11. The claimant gave evidence about the Austudy allowance she was receiving while at university. She agreed that if she worked the allowance would reduce. She disagreed with the proposition that: "because she was studying, she was unable to work". The claimant's evidence was that there are many people on Austudy who were working part-time or casually. It was put to the claimant that what she could have earnt in part-time work would be "about the same" as she would receive by way of Austudy payments. She responded, "I don't know if I agree".
12. While she agreed that there was, from a monetary perspective, no reason to work part-time while studying given the availability of Austudy, there was another incentive to work namely, to occupy herself as she attended university no more than two days a week.
13. The claimant was cross examined about her work intentions prior to the accident. Her evidence was that there was a "big part" of her that wanted to do law. Although she had wanted to become a teacher, her thinking changed when she was 15 or 16 years old.
14. The claimant gave evidence that she applied to do a teaching degree after the accident and was given a pre-offer to enrol in the degrees she is now undertaking.
15. The claimant was cross examined in detail about her application to the university. She did not agree that, despite what she wrote in the application about teaching being her "dream career", her priority prior to the accident was to become a teacher. She said that she accepted the offer because it was "the easy way out", offering her security in circumstances where she did not have the memory, concentration and focus in year 12 that she previously had. She did not see herself being able to strive for more.
16. The claimant's evidence was that her time management skills had deteriorated since the accident. She struggled to keep up, struggled with motivation, and struggled with concentration. She was not able to study as effectively as she did before the accident.
17. The claimant's evidence, with respect to what was recorded in her university application, was that she was "obviously trying to sell [herself]". The claimant went on to say that she "wanted to talk [herself] up a little bit and use words that make [her] look like a good candidate". She also agreed that what she said in that document about her study regimen and netball activities were not true. She was not playing netball, had not played since the accident, and was not able to study to the extent she recorded in that document. The claimant accepted the university application was a "pretty serious document". She denied that she was exaggerating her pain levels "or anything like that" and denied that she had applied for a disability parking permit because she "knew this hearing was coming up".
18. The claimant gave evidence about the dispensations she was given by her high school when she returned in year 12 with respect to both class attendance and exams. She agreed that she was intending to graduate from her double degree in 2026. She did not agree she would be able to work full time as a teacher. Her evidence was that there is a difference between studying full-time and working full time. She did not attend the university every day of the week. Depending on the semester she would attend one or two days a week. The previous semester she had been at university for a couple of hours one day a week.
19. With respect to the impact of the accident on her HSC result, the claimant agreed that, had the accident not occurred, she would not have achieved an ATAR of 95 or above, the sort of marks required to be offered a place at a top law school. Her evidence was that she would have looked into bridging courses or possibly applied to transfer to another university after her first year.
20. The claimant gave evidence that she expected to graduate midway through 2026. She has undertaken three placements in schools as part of her course. She found the experience exhausting both physically and cognitively. Her evidence was that her back, hip and knees are causing her the most trouble. She described the difficulties she experiences as a result of her abdominal injuries; she needs to be close to a bathroom after eating, avoids some foods and experiences stomach pain. The claimant became visibly distressed while giving evidence about these matters and required a break.

1. [CAM] gave a statement dated 27 October 2025. He was not required for cross examination and did not give oral evidence. [CAM] has known the claimant since she was 11 years old. He has regularly seen her in social and family settings and considers her to be his niece. He has watched her grow from a child into adulthood.
2. [CAM] states that prior to the accident the claimant was warm, engaging and interested in others. She was committed to her schooling, sport, family and friends. She told him that when she grew up, she wanted to be a "lawyer hopefully or something like that". He encouraged her to study law.
3. When he saw the claimant after she was discharged from hospital, she complained of significant pain. He saw her limping, favouring her left wrist and having difficulty moving about and functioning.
4. [CAM] states the claimant appears "lack lustre, or limp, and [was] so different to the girl [he] knew those years before the accident." She does not dress as she did before the accident and "appears to take no interest in outings like she once did to coffee or dinners or to see friends, family."
5. The statement records the claimant has told [CAM] that: she has to force herself out of bed to coach netball, she no longer enjoys driving, is frightened when she does, and forces herself to drive. She has told him that she can't concentrate on her university studies, that she no longer "[has] the heart for law" or teaching, and that "life is exhausting just managing the pains and aches after the accident".

1. [CAM]'s evidence is that the claimant is quiet, sullen and short with people. She is quick to anger and is sometimes teary. He has seen her become angry with her mother. She is no longer engaging and hangs back quietly.

1. The medical evidence includes medico-legal reports, certificates and reasons issued by Medical Assessors, together with records and reports from treatment providers.

1. The claimant was assessed by Medical Assessors Berry (abdominal injuries), Menogue (physical injuries) and Sidorov (psychological injuries). Each of the Medical Assessors issued certificates and reasons with respect to their assessment of the claimant's permanent impairment.
2. In his reasons dated 13 March 2024, Medical Assessor Berry recorded at [12] the claimant's symptoms including constipation and diarrhoea which vary in severity. There was a faint midline scar approximately 15cm in length extending from the umbilical region to the suprapubic region. The Medical Assessor recorded that the claimant "at all times was cooperative throughout the assessment and demonstrated no illness behaviour and no exaggeration."
3. In Medical Assessor Berry's opinion, seatbelt caused blunt trauma to the claimant's abdomen resulted in damage to the sigmoid colon and caecum, both of which required resection and an appendicectomy. He assessed a 20% permanent impairment.
4. Medical Assessor Menogue's reasons relate to his assessment of the claimant's right leg, right hip, right knee, left wrist, lumbar and cervical spine injuries. The Medical Assessor's reasons record that the claimant reported constant neck pain with symptoms in her left arm, constant lumber back pain, intermittent right hip pain, intermittent deep-seated ache in her right leg at the fracture site, discomfort in the right knee, particularly when she goes up and down stairs and on uneven ground, and intermittent pain deep within the left wrist with activity. She reported that the left wrist feels weaker than the right. It is recorded that there was a 5.5cm well-healed scar on the claimant's left wrist.
5. The Medical Assessor recorded that there was no inconsistency in the claimant's performance on examination. In Medical Assessor Minogue's opinion, as a result of the accident the claimant suffered a fracture to her right leg, soft tissue injury to her right hip, right knee, lumbar spine and cervical spine, and left wrist fracture. He found there was permanent impairment of the claimant's cervical spine (5%), right leg (2%), and as a result of the left wrist scarring (1%).
6. Medical Assessor Sidorov assessed the claimant's psychological injuries. The Medical Assessor's reasons record that the claimant reported experiencing flashbacks, nightmares and recurrent thoughts about the accident. The intrusion symptoms are brought on by reminders of the accident, such as seeing emergency vehicles and hearing sirens or seeing a car crash in real life or on television. She attempts to avoid any reminders of the accident as they cause her to feel distressed. The claimant also experiences symptoms of a low mood and a generally unstable mood, particularly when reminded of the accident. Her symptoms can be triggered when she is driving and someone else is speeding or cutting her off, at which point she gets upset, angry and more irritable. The claimant reported feeling hypervigilant and stated that she often feels dissociated from everything around her as if it is not real and feels like she is in a dream state.
7. Among other matters, the claimant reported that at times she found it difficult to study and "procrastinates quite a bit". He also recorded that there were no inconsistencies in the claimant's history or presentation.
8. In Medical Assessor Sidorov's opinion, the claimant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident. She had a 5% permanent impairment as a result of that injury. The Medical Assessor's reasons addressing the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) record, among other matters, that the claimant had become more socially withdrawn, that she experiences anxiety and irritability when driving, that she had become more forgetful and has found it more difficult to concentrate since the accident. The Medical Assessor found that the claimant had a mild impairment with respect to adaptation.

1. Dr Roberts, psychiatrist, reported to the claimant's solicitors on 7 June 2022, 24 June 2022, 7 August 2022 and 10 August 2022. In the doctor's opinion the claimant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident. The doctor recorded the claimant required "ready access" to a bathroom because of her abdominal injuries and that this would be a further significant stressor, especially for such a young person. In the doctor's opinion, the claimant's condition is complicated as a result of her developing an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression secondary to her physical injuries.
2. In Dr Robert's opinion, the prognosis for the post-traumatic stress disorder was for a degree of remission over time but "not necessarily abolition of symptomatology." The prognosis for the adjustment disorder depended on the continuing impact of her physical injuries. The condition may become chronic. In addition to her physical injuries, the presence of psychopathology would also impact on employment.

1. Dr Dias, occupational physician, reported to the claimant's solicitor on 29 August 2023. In the doctor's opinion, the claimant's injuries stemming from the accident have had a negative impact on her employment capacity and are likely to continue to have an ongoing negative impact on her employment capacity on an indefinite basis.
2. In Dr Dias' opinion, the claimant was fit to work on a part-time basis for up to 30 hours a week (six hours a day five days a week alternatively 7.5 hours a day four days a week). She had, as a result of her injuries, restrictions with respect to: repetitive lifting, pulling and pushing, walking, standing, sitting, driving, tasks that involve bending and twisting of the lower back, tasks that involve kneeling, squatting or crouching, tasks that involve prolonged walking on uneven ground, repetitive staircase climbing or ladder climbing, tasks that involve running, jogging or jumping and tasks that involve work in confined spaces.
3. In the doctor's opinion, it is doubtful the claimant will be able to sustain the core physical requirements of working as a high school physical education teacher given this role involves a degree of strenuous physical exercise/activity on a day-to-day basis. The claimant's injuries will be at an "unacceptable risk" of aggravation and exacerbation if she were to work as a PE teacher. She would be capable of working as a high school teacher on a part-time basis once she completes her university degree. In Dr Dias' opinion the claimant will be capable of working in the "education system", as a teacher or in an administrative capacity, within the restrictions he identified.
4. In Dr Dias' opinion, taking into account the claimant's previous education, training and experience, and the impact of the abovementioned restrictions on her vocational avenues and vocational capacity, her injuries are likely to ultimately result in a 25% loss of earning capacity over the remainder of her working life. Furthermore, taking into account the claimant's symptoms and disabilities, her poor prognosis for improvement, her education, training and experience, her vocational aspirations, and the prospect of further degeneration and deterioration of her injuries, there was likely to be a reduction of her working life of approximately 10 years.
5. Dr Anderson, psychiatrist, reported to the claimant's solicitor on 2 October 2024. Among other matters, the doctor recorded that the claimant avoids lectures and tutorials. She experienced difficulties in her school placements for the reasons recorded on page 5 of the report. The claimant did not see herself as capable of full-time teaching but seemed to consider part-time teaching was possible. She reported lacking motivation and concentration.

1. Dr Anderson diagnosed chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. The claimant's prognosis was guarded. The condition is likely to persist with periods of worsening or aggravation in response to stressful events. The claimant's capacity for employment as a teacher is affected. Her impaired concentration affects her capacity to study. Her difficulties showing equanimity of mood affect her capacity to perform as a teacher. Easy fatigability affects her capacity to work more than restricted hours.
2. In the doctor's opinion, the claimant's capacity to study or work in law was "zero". Her capacity to work in face-to-face teaching, whatever age the student base, was much diminished. She lacks the capacity to work full hours as a teacher on psychiatric grounds alone. Her capacity is not likely to improve and is more likely to decline. Her condition is chronic. It is likely that her work capacity will be more limited towards the end of her working life.
3. Dr George, psychiatrist, reported to the insurer on 2 November 2022. The doctor diagnosed chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in association with major depression with anxiety. Dr George recorded that since the accident the claimant had struggled cognitively and emotionally. In the doctor's opinion neuropsychological assessment should be undertaken because she appeared to have had a closed head injury and may have suffered a mild brain injury.
4. Dr George stated that the claimant's academic performance had been affected by her injuries. In support of his finding of a class 3 impairment for "adaptation" in the PIRS assessment, the doctor recorded that whilst she is attending a university course, the claimant is struggling with the course and has no energy or capacity for anything else. In his opinion "this would be equivalent to working part-time."
5. Dr Berry, psychiatrist, reported at the request of the insurer on 29 July 2025. The claimant reported she has "good and bad days". She feels "dissociated" most of the time and "like [she's] not even here". Life does not "feel real". The claimant reported that she feels like she watches herself outside of her body doing things. This happens almost every day, can last hours, and is sometimes triggered by memories of being in hospital. The claimant's mood fluctuates and she can be tearful. She can become easily agitated and is quick to anger. She reported difficulties with sleep, that she has flashbacks, is easily startled and is anxious outside her home.
6. The claimant reported pain in her back, hips and neck. Some strenuous activities can leave her feeling tired. She needs to take more breaks when completing physical activities. Restrictions in activities of daily living were reported as were difficulties at university associated with pain, concentration, and motivation. When she worked briefly in a retail job, she reported struggling being on her feet all day.
7. In Dr Berry's opinion the claimant has post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident. The condition had become chronic. The claimant's prognosis was guarded. Ongoing treatment was recommended.
8. In the doctor's opinion the accident may have impacted the claimant's HSC mark. Her earning capacity is likely to be slightly reduced for 12-24 months due to ongoing symptoms. The doctor noted that whilst she was studying full-time the claimant can struggle with motivation, energy and anxiety. In the doctor's opinion the claimant is fit to work full-time from a psychological perspective but may need more support and utilise periods of leave when struggling with psychological symptoms.
9. Dr Berry "hoped" the claimant's long-term capacity would improve to the point of being unaffected by the accident. The doctor assessed a 5% permanent impairment. His reasons for the various PIRS classes assessed include reference to the claimant struggling to focus at university.
10. Dr Bentivoglio, neurosurgeon, reported to the claimant's solicitor on 10 December 2024. The doctor's "working diagnosis" was axial neck pain secondary to C4/5 and C5/6 mild discopathy and low back pain secondary to mild disc changes at L3/4 and L4/5. The doctor also diagnosed a mild traumatic brain injury with persistent mild cognitive impairment[1].
11. In Dr Bentivoglio's opinion, the mild degenerative changes in the cervical spine will slowly but surely progress. The claimant may be "worried" by intermittent neck and back pain that she needed to manage with appropriate work and appropriate activities.
12. Dr Breit, orthopaedic surgeon, reported on two occasions to the insurer. In his first report dated 26 October 2022, the doctor diagnosed: fractures of the right femoral and left distal radius and an ulnar fracture, the latter going on to non-union, mechanical bursitis arising from the proximal interlocking screw through the femoral nail, and soft tissue injury to the neck, thoracic and lumbar spine. The "situation" was not stable, and the claimant required further management. The doctor recorded that while the claimant was attending university, she does have functional restrictions arising from her left wrist, back, hip, and knee injuries.
13. In his report dated 28 February 2024 Dr Breit recorded that the claimant continued to experience pain in her left wrist, neck, upper and lower back, and right knee. In response to a question about whether there were any inconsistencies in the claimant's presentation, the doctor responded that she "presente[d] in a straightforward manner."
14. Dr Breit thought the sensory changes reported by the claimant may correspond to cervical nerve root (C6) irritation. The doctor confirmed his diagnosis of a left wrist fracture, right femoral fracture, soft tissue injury to the thoracic and low back, and right knee pain that was probably due to a soft tissue injury but may be referred from the intramedullary fixation.
15. In Dr Breit's opinion the claimant's condition had not stabilised. Stabilisation will depend on what further treatment was undertaken. That in turn was dependent upon the outcome of a cervical MRI scan and the timing and subsequent progress of her wrist surgery. In his opinion, "at least" the interlocking screws should be removed from the right femoral nail.
16. Dr Breit described the claimant's prognosis as "guarded". The doctor thought she was "doing quite well" at university but noted she had not returned to any of her sporting or social activities. In his opinion, the claimant may require some time off from university for surgery but otherwise there should be no significant effect. For the left wrist there will be some restriction for a period of three months. The doctor was not asked to express an opinion about the claimant's capacity for work.
17. Dr Mellick, neurologist, assessed the claimant at the insurer's request and prepared a report dated 23 June 2025. The doctor recorded that the claimant did not experience any significant period of retrograde or anterograde amnesia following the accident and there was no significant period of unconsciousness. Neurological examination revealed no long tract or segmental signs and there was no indication of an organically determined intracranial, spinal, nerve root or peripheral nerve injury.
18. The doctor recorded the claimant's complaints of neck pain with left arm symptoms and pain in her lower back. In the doctor's opinion, the symptoms described by the claimant are "not organically determined" and the findings on physical examination do not reveal any physical abnormality which might explain those symptoms. There was no "organically determined" neurological component contributing to her clinical condition. The orthopaedic injuries had healed completely.
19. In Dr Mellick's opinion, it is likely that the flare ups reported by the claimant are associated with anxiety and an increase in muscle tension producing muscle pain in the paracervical and shoulder girdle regions. That phenomenon is, in his opinion, a common expression of anxiety. The doctor recorded that there were no inconsistencies on examination. The claimant's prognosis depended upon the effective management of non-organically determined symptoms.

1. Dr Mellick disagreed with Dr Bentivoglio's opinion that the pain experienced by the claimant is secondary to mild disc changes. In his opinion, the disc changes present are "part and parcel" of the beginning of the ageing process. Further, there is no evidence to attribute the symptoms to an organic cause emanating from the cervical spine.
2. Dr Hughes, clinical neuropsychologist and forensic psychologist, reported on

8 December 2023, having conducted a joint assessment of the claimant. Among other observations, Dr Hughes recorded that difficulties with motivation and engagement were indicated on formal testing, substantiated by formal measures of performance validity. The claimant was noted to fatigue towards the end of the assessment and was noted to yawn and subtly move and stretch from discomfort. Testing was limited and results should be interpreted cautiously. 3. The doctor opined that on a self-rated measure of personality and psychopathology, validity indicators were within acceptable limits, with no problems with unscorable items nor indication of over or under-reporting. Scores on the Substantive Scales indicated somatic and cognitive complaints, and emotional and interpersonal dysfunction. Somatic complaints included preoccupation with poor health, malaise, and neurological symptoms. 4. The claimant reported a diffuse pattern of cognitive difficulties including memory problems, difficulties with attention and concentration, and possible confusion. Her responses indicated significant emotional distress. She reported various negative emotional experiences, particularly multiple anxiety-related experiences, including generalised anxiety, intrusive ideation, startle responses, panic, and being anger-prone. She reported multiple fears that significantly restrict normal activity in and outside the home, an above-average level of stress, excessive worry, including worries about misfortune and finances, as well as preoccupation with disappointments. She also reported a lack of positive emotional experiences and a lack of interest, as well as self-doubt and futility. She did not enjoy social events and avoided social situations. 5. In Dr Hughes' opinion, diagnostic considerations raised by the scale include anxiety-related disorders such as generalised anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, agoraphobia, and panic disorder, anger related disorders, disorders associated with social avoidance such as avoidant personality disorder. 6. The claimant's mood was noted to be reduced. Motivation was reduced generally, although some variability was indicated. She described cognitive complaints but noted that these appeared to be worsening, which, in the doctor's opinion, is incongruent with brain injury. The claimant also indicated that cognitive symptoms appeared to correspond to mood state, suggestive of more psychologically-based origins. 7. On testing, performance validity measures were "suspicious of suboptimal effort" on cognitive tasks meaning results needed to be interpreted with caution. That said, the doctor thought the claimant's performance on tasks were within age-normative limits despite some personal reductions and inefficiencies in memory and complex attention, which could also be interpreted as consistent with her mood. Psychological inventories, including one with inbuilt symptom validity scales, indicated results were valid. Responses on these scales were consistent with her established diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. 8. In Dr Hughes' opinion, the claimant's reported cognitive symptoms are most consistent with her psychological diagnosis, with likely superimposed impact from physical pain, which would make it "more effortful" for her to attend and concentrate. She was not considered to have sustained a permanent brain injury as a result of the accident. With alleviation in mood state there would be concurrent alleviation in report of such symptomology. It was "somewhat concerning" that after almost a year of psychological treatment the claimant experiences poorer mood following psychological sessions due to feeling "drained". Although the claimant appeared to have implemented some strategies, this was limited. The doctor recommended that the claimant trial at least a brief period of psychopharmacological treatment to aid motivation so that she can further engage in treatment and implement learnt strategies aimed at managing both distress and pain. More frequent sessions could also be considered so that she can implement and maintain skills.

1. Dr Athanasou, vocational assessor, reported to the insurer on 16 September 2024. Having considered the claimant's pre-accident school performance, Dr Athanasou accepted that there were "some limitations on her educational achievement" as a result of the accident. He described her Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) of 76.65 as "creditable" and her progress at university in the combined Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Exercise Science degree as "satisfactory". Her average grade in Semester 1 2022 was 64.5. In Semester 2 2022 her average grade was 62.75 and in Semester 1 2023 her average grade was 66.66.
2. Dr Athanasou recorded that with her ATAR, the claimant would have qualified for entry to the law course at the Australian Catholic University (North Sydney Campus). Based on the lowest student rank from the Universities Admissions Centre that applied in 2022 she would not have qualified for law courses at Macquarie University, University of Sydney, University of Technology Sydney or Western Sydney University.

1. Dr Athanasou recorded that "[i]t is not a remarkable statement on my part to say that the overall prospects of the claimant successfully completing studies in an undergraduate law course are probably not 100%."
2. Dr Athanasou recorded that it was possible for the claimant to apply for entry in a post-graduate Bachelor of Laws when she finished her current double degree. The prospects of her completing university study in law are difficult to quantify. A great deal would depend on which university was involved and the calibre of the competition, as some courses are highly selective. Dr Athanasou stated that, at face value, having completed an undergraduate degree successfully there is a "realistic and meaningful probability of success in postgraduate study in law if this is desired". While the claimant may experience some cognitive difficulties her undergraduate record "appears to be adequate for further study if this is required".
3. Dr Athanasou concluded his report as follows:

"On the basis of the information available to me it seems likely that if the accident had not occurred then the claimant ... had the potential to complete the highest level of secondary schooling and obtain entry to university. She was a student of high average but not superior ability based on her school achievement. She obtained an [ATAR] of 76.65. It seemed likely to me that she might have obtained a slightly higher rank due to the effects of the injury. Notwithstanding that she might have obtained a higher rank, it was never likely to be in the order of 96.0 or more, which was required for most law courses at the major metropolitan universities in Sydney.

Therefore, it did not seem that she was ever excluded from studying law at Macquarie University, University of Sydney, University of Technology Sydney or Western Sydney University. Paradoxically, she met the lowest student rank for entry into law at Australian Catholic University and continues to meet that criterion. To her credit, she has continued studying and has achieved at around a Pass-Credit level in a teaching degree. She has the capacity to work as a teacher and if she so desires and still has the potential to take up study in law as a postgraduate degree or through other pathways. She may require specialized guidance and advice..."

1. Craig Martin prepared a vocational capacity report dated 16 November 2024 at the request of the claimant's solicitor. At 2.5 in the report Mr Martin recorded the claimant's reported physical abilities with respect to various tasks including sitting, standing, walking, lifting, and computer use. In his opinion, the claimant's academic achievement in the HSC was likely negatively impacted by the accident.

1. In Mr Martin's opinion, as a result of her injuries and disabilities the claimant will probably be unable to complete her double degree and gain and sustain employment as a secondary school teacher. I do not agree. I consider it more probable than not that she will graduate from both degrees. This is not to suggest it will be without difficulty; the claimant is concerned about the final 35-day extended placement she is required to complete. The university has to date made allowances for her disabilities. There is no reason to think it would stop doing so. She has now completed four years of a four-and-a-half-year double degree. She has been awarded pass marks or credits in the subjects she has taken. Comments in the records relating to her school placements are generally positive.
2. In Mr Martin's opinion, having regard to the restrictions the claimant experiences as a result of her injuries, her education, training and experience, she could work as a general clerk or in similar employment. Her prospects of gaining and sustaining or maintaining suitable employment on the open labour market until retirement age are in practical terms between poor and fair. I have considered the reasons Mr Martin has given for his opinion in this regard at [7] in his report.
3. In Mr Martin's opinion the claimant will probably only be able to exercise approximately 60% of her notional earning capacity which amounts to approximately $627 net a week.
4. Mr Martin expressed the opinion that the claimant's most likely career trajectory but for the accident was to complete tertiary studies in law and work as a solicitor. Based on salary surveys, he assumes earnings as a solicitor of $2,049 net a week.
5. In Mr Martin's opinion, but for the accident the claimant would have been able to complete university studies in teaching and work as a secondary school teacher. That opportunity was no longer available because of her accident caused injuries.
6. The insurer relies on three reports and a summary from the Vocational Capacity Centre (VCC) dated 11 December 2025. The first report is a functional capacity report prepared by

Mr Sharobim, a physiotherapist, the second a vocational assessment report prepared by Dr Henricks, an organisational psychologist, and the third a "Job Match Report". 7. Mr Sharobim's report contains a summary of various matters, including the claimant's history and treatment, a description of her pre and post-accident functioning, details of her university studies, including practical placements, and the work she had recently undertaken at a primary school for two days. 8. The claimant reported symptoms in her neck, low back, right hip, right knee, mid back and left wrist. She had recently experienced increased low back pain after undertaking casual work at a primary school. Otherwise, the pain she experienced was predominantly in her neck. 9. All the findings on physical examination have been considered, in particular those referred to by counsel in oral submissions. Under the heading "Comments" it is recorded that the findings indicated limited core strength. Grip strength in her left hand was below average. 10. The report refers to both "consistencies and inconsistencies". The inconsistencies relate to the differences between the claimant's reported physical tolerances and the tolerances she exhibited at the assessment. 11. Mr Sharobim's report records both the claimant's "demonstrated" abilities and restrictions, together with descriptions of the "typical physical demands" of primary and secondary school teachers. 12. Under the heading "physical capacities compared to job description", Mr Sharobim refers to his findings on examination. He thought the claimant demonstrated the ability to work in sitting and standing postures with appropriate postural breaks. She could walk about the workplace and carry to the "light physical demand level". There were no objective signs of restriction, indicating that the results are likely a conservative estimate of the claimant's current ability. 13. The claimant had limitations with overhead work that could be addressed by a targeted gym program. Her ability to work at low levels was compromised. Repetitive forceful gripping with her left hand should be avoided. 14. In Mr Sharobim's opinion, the claimant demonstrated the physical capacity to perform sedentary and light level work and was suited to the work duties of a secondary and primary school teacher. She may, in his opinion, be better suited to older primary aged students to avoid the need for crouching or bending. In a physically suitable occupation, no pathology has been identified that would preclude the claimant from working full-time hours; however, she may be better suited to commencing on part-time work 15- 20 hours a week and increasing to full-time over a period of three to six months to allow for reconditioning. 15. Mr Sharobim recorded that, given possible removal of the left wrist hardware, the claimant's condition may not have stabilised, and her functional capacity may improve. Finally, Mr Sharobim recorded that comment on the claimant's mental health and its impact on her ability to work is outside his area of expertise. 16. Dr Henricks' report records in the opening paragraph that his assessment involved both the exploration of relevant aspects of personal, educational, and employment backgrounds together with the psychometric evaluation of intellectual skills and personal preferences. It is also recorded later in the report that:

"Clinical diagnosis is beyond the scope of a vocational assessment, and this also applies to the question of whether or not a traumatic brain injury occurred, plus whether there remain any residual symptoms."

1. The report includes a summary of the claimant's personal and educational history. Her recent work as a relief teacher for two days is described. The report also records details of the tests administered and the results. It is noted in the report that the claimant needed to take an unscheduled toilet break during the assessment and that she stood on one occasion due to back pain. Dr Henricks also recorded his observation that the claimant demonstrated excellent communication skills.
2. The report contains a description of the practical component required for the claimant to qualify for a Bachelor of Education. As recorded earlier, I accept the claimant's evidence that she needs to complete 35 hours of supervised teaching in 2026 to be awarded the degree. I consider her to be in the best position to give evidence about these requirements; she has been studying the degree for four years and would be well aware of the prerequisites for the degree being awarded.
3. Assuming the accuracy of the cognitive profile revealed in the assessment, Dr Henricks stated that the claimant remains an intelligent young woman who has cognitive abilities that are equal to or better than 39% of the population her age. Her cognitive abilities are in the normal range. He was unsurprised the claimant has been able to complete her university studies to date. On the basis of her standardised test results, Dr Henricks would "not entirely rule out" the possibility that the claimant may still possess the capacity to seek a career in the legal profession, provided she is sufficiently motivated to do so. Dr Henricks went on to state that given the absence of any traumatic brain injury, it can be assumed that her present cognitive abilities are likely to be much the same as her pre-accident cognitive abilities. He also recorded that above-average cognitive abilities would normally be expected among those who successfully pursue a career as a lawyer.
4. Dr Henricks stated that although it remains possible for the claimant to pursue a career as a lawyer, it is likely given her cognitive profile that this would be a difficult process for her to follow. Sustained motivation over an extended period would be required. He thought that work as a teacher was "entirely appropriate" based on the findings of the assessment.
5. The report also records that the claimant mentioned experiencing physical discomfort while working as a teacher. Dr Henricks recorded that "these would be a matter for another assessor." From a vocational and psychological perspective, he "strongly" recommended that the claimant continue on her present career path. In Dr Henricks' opinion, from a psychological and cognitive perspective, there is no sound basis on which to doubt her ability to work full-time-equivalent hours "in the role of her choosing".
6. Dr Henricks concluded that appropriate vocational possibilities for the claimant are likely to be found in the Managers, Professionals, or Clerical and Administrative Workers categories. It was he "strong recommendation" that she consider a role as a primary or secondary school teacher "as a priority".
7. If the claimant would prefer to pursue a change in career toward a role that would immediately enable her to explore a career in the legal profession, subject to some further training being completed, consideration could be given to work as a contract administrator, insurance investigator, or conveyancer. It is possible that with sustained motivation, the claimant may still be able to pursue a career as a lawyer. That career path was not recommended "at this stage". Dr Henricks thought the claimant did not appear to remain sufficiently interested in this option to sustain the motivation required for such an arduous program. It is, in his opinion, also questionable whether she has the cognitive ability to complete such a course in the absence of high motivation. As an alternative, if the claimant's interests change in the future, and she loses some interest in becoming a teacher, it may be more appropriate for her to consider the following alternatives, each of which may require additional training to be pursued: education adviser or faculty manager - registered training organisation.
8. Included in the VCC report is a "Job Match Report". That report contains descriptions of various roles, including primary and secondary school teacher, contract administrator, insurance investigator, conveyancer, education advisor, and faculty manager. Gross pay rates for each role are contained in various tables.
9. The insurer has subsequently filed, with leave, a schedule containing net pay rates for each of the roles referred to in the job match report together with a weighted average. The claimant has filed a competing schedule of net earnings by reference to the gross figures in the VCC report and the Award. I have carefully considered the schedules, together with the gross wage figures recorded in the Job Match report.

1. The joint bundle contains records from treatment providers including radiological reports. These records support the claimant's case with respect to the injuries she suffered as a result of the accident. The hospital discharge referral in particular contains a detailed summary of her injuries and treatment.

1. A referral from Dr Malik to Dr Freeman dated 23 January 2023 states that the claimant was experiencing chronic abdominal pain and increased frequency of passing of stools since the accident.
2. A certificate of capacity dated 6 November 2025 refers to a right femur fracture, left wrist fracture, bowel contusion and colon resection, and "PTSD". Symptoms include chronic pain as a result of the fractures, symptoms of "IBS" and "symptoms like short gut syndrome". The certificate describes limitations with respect to the claimant's capacity for various activities. She was certified as being fit for some work four hours a day one day a week.
3. There is also an application for a disability parking permit, the contents of which have been considered.
4. In addition to the VCC reports and the Award, the supplementary bundle includes reports from treatment providers, radiological reports and clinical notes. All that material has been considered.
5. Among other matters, reports in this bundle refer to the claimant's reported physical symptoms including hip, thigh and knee pain, hardware irritation,[2] tenderness in the left hand,[3] and lower back pain and left upper limb radicular symptoms.[4]
6. An X-ray report dated 18 October 2022 relates to the claimant's spine, left wrist, left elbow and right femur. The findings recorded in the report have been considered.
7. The MRI report dated 15 March 2023 relates to the cervical and lumbar spine. The clinical history referred to in the report included ongoing pain, left arm radicular symptoms and lower back pain radiating to the pelvis. Findings included small bulges at C3/4, C4/5 and C5/6. There also were bulges at L2/3 and L3/4.
8. The physiotherapist's notes relate to consultations in January and February 2023. The notes include reference to thigh and hip pain, right knee pain, lower back pain, neck and shoulder stiffness, pain on various activities, problems with sleep, and functional limitations.

1. The evidence includes material from the claimant's High School. These records confirm the claimant was afforded various accommodations when she returned to school in year 12. A Disability Provisions Application form includes comments from the claimant's teachers addressing the ways in which her disabilities affected her performance in the classroom and assessment tasks. Reference is made to limitations sitting, that she fatigues easily limiting her ability to concentrate, and anxiety.
2. The records include various test results, school reports, and the claimant's courses of study for years 11 and 12. There is also a "College Leaders Application" completed by the claimant, the contents of which have been considered.
3. The claimant's university academic transcript issued in July 2023 records her results for 2022 and 2023. She appears to have achieved pass marks or credits in the subjects she has completed.
4. The university records also contain details of the claimant's supervised professional experience. She completed 15 days in 2023. The associated reports addressing the claimant's performance during these placements has been considered, including the supervising teacher's comments. On 28 June 2023 the supervising teacher recorded "[a] credit to [the university] and a future excellent teacher. Has been a great experience working with [her]. She'll be my loss soon." The claimant's comments have been considered.
5. The "Teaching Standards Assessment Scales and Comments" records that while the claimant had "demonstrated" many of the skills, she was "working towards" some and others were "not demonstrated".

1. Mr Daley addressed the Award in oral submissions. I have considered it in detail. The salary payable to a teacher is influenced by matters such as their level of accreditation. I have considered the stepped process referred to in subclauses 3.5 - 3.12. Salary progression for teachers under standards-based remuneration occurs in accordance with these subclauses.
2. The Schedules to the Award contain the gross salaries for each step relevant to the category of teacher. For example, Schedule 1A contains teacher salaries - standards based remuneration. Schedule 2A relates to Principals. Schedule 3 is for other classifications such as deputies, head teachers and psychologists. Schedule 7 deals with various allowances.
3. The salary payable to a teacher covered by the Award depends on their progression through the various steps in subclauses 3.5 - 3.11. Progression is contingent upon various matters including the level of accreditation, satisfactory performance of duties, and demonstrating continued efficiency in teaching practice via an annual performance and development process.
4. I infer that appointment of teachers to other classifications referred to in the Award, such as head teacher, deputy principal and principal, depends on availability of those positions, the professional competence and experience of candidates, and selection after a merit-based appointment process.

1. In the insurer's submission both the certificate of capacity dated 6 November 2025 and the application for a disability parking permit give rise to concerns about the reliability of the claimant's evidence. Mr Wilson submitted it was "odd" for the claimant to go to the GP and get documents that would assist her case five years after the accident and a month or two before the hearing.
2. I accept the claimant's evidence the certificate was obtained in circumstances where she had experienced increased symptoms and functional difficulties after undertaking casual work at a school. I also accept her evidence that she made the application for a disability parking permit because she experienced difficulties walking long distances to and from her car in car parks. Neither the certificate nor the application for a parking permit call into question the reliability of the claimant's evidence.
3. The insurer placed significant emphasis on what the claimant recorded in her university application submitted on 1 June 2021. The insurer argued that some of the claimant's responses in the application were not accurate, were intentionally misleading, and this impugned the reliability of her evidence. Mr Wilson submitted that the claimant was someone who was prepared to tell a critical lie in a critical document. This was another matter relied on by the insurer in oral submissions to support its argument that the claimant's evidence about the level of her symptoms and disability should not be accepted at face value.
4. I have given careful consideration to the claimant's responses recorded in the university application and to her oral evidence. The application was submitted after the accident, when the claimant was part way through year 12 and before she sat HSC exams. She agreed during cross examination that some of what she stated in the application was not correct and was misleading.
5. What the claimant recorded in the application in relation to her sporting activities and study routine was not consistent with what she was doing, and was capable of doing, after the accident. The responses were not accurate and were misleading. The claimant's responses were, however, entirely consistent with what she was doing before the accident.
6. I accept the claimant's evidence that she was "selling herself" in circumstances where she had suffered life-altering injuries that had significantly impacted on her school performance at a critical juncture.

1. Mr Sharobim identified what, in his opinion, were inconsistencies between the claimant's reported physical tolerances compared with her performance when she was assessed by him. These "inconsistencies" must be evaluated by reference to both the context in which Mr Sharobim formed his opinion, at an assessment over a limited period on a single occasion, and the other evidence before the Commission.
2. There is no dispute the claimant suffered significant injuries as a result of the accident. Her evidence about the symptoms she has experienced and the impact her injuries have had on her functioning have been generally consistent.
3. In assessing the reliability of the claimant's evidence, I have given weight to the findings of the Medical Assessors that there were no inconsistencies on examination,[5] and similar findings made by medico-legal doctors including Drs Breit,[6] Mellick,[7] and Berry.[8]
4. While Dr Hughes recorded that on testing, performance validity measures were "suspicious of suboptimal effort" on cognitive tasks meaning results "need to be interpreted with caution", she thought the claimant's performance was within age-normative limits. The doctor recorded that psychological inventories, including one with inbuilt symptom validity scales, indicated results were valid. Responses on these scales were, in Dr Hughes' opinion, consistent with the established diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
5. Dr Hughes recorded that the claimant's reported "diffuse pattern" of cognitive difficulties including memory problems, difficulties with attention and concentration, and possible confusion indicated significant emotional distress. The doctor did not appear to doubt the validity of the claimant's reported psychological symptoms, recording that her cognitive symptoms are most consistent with her psychological diagnosis, with likely superimposed impact from physical pain.
6. I found the claimant to be an impressive witness. She made appropriate concessions, including in relation to her university application. I am satisfied the claimant gave honest and accurate evidence about her symptoms and the functional impact her injuries have had on her. I accept her evidence about these matters. The inaccurate and misleading matters recorded by the claimant in her university application do not cause me to doubt the reliability of her evidence with respect to her symptoms and disability.

1. As recorded in the hospital notes, the claimant suffered polytrauma as a result of the accident. The insurer conceded in oral submissions that the claimant suffered significant orthopaedic injuries as a result of the accident. Other than the injuries to her neck and back, the claimant's physical injuries are well documented in the hospital records.
2. As recorded earlier, in so far as the claimant's injuries are concerned the dispute between the parties is within very narrow compass. In making the findings that follow I have considered the evidence together with the written and oral submissions.
3. I am satisfied that as a result of the accident the claimant suffered the following injuries:

(a) fractured right femur requiring open reduction and internal fixation;

(b) fractured left distal radius (wrist) requiring open reduction and internal fixation;

(c) soft tissue injury to the right hip;

(d) soft tissue injury to the right knee;

(e) damage to the sigmoid colon requiring resection;

(f) caecal serosal tear requiring partial caecectomy with appendicectomy, and

(g) mesenteric haematoma in the distal ileum.

1. The claimant also suffered abrasions and bruising to various parts of her body that have since resolved. The injury to her head has resolved and a traumatic brain injury is not alleged, matters conceded by the claimant's counsel at the hearing.
2. The claimant's neck and back symptoms appear to have been first reported some months after the accident. The insurer does not dispute the claimant suffered injuries to these regions of her body.
3. In her second statement, the claimant described experiencing neck and back pain since the accident. She has also reported symptoms in her left arm. Notes made by the claimant's GP, Dr Malik, on 4 November 2020 record "PT ongoing for whiplash". I infer "PT" is a reference to physiotherapy. On 16 February 2021 the doctor's notes refer to the claimant's "lower back", shoulder and neck. Drs Dias, Bentivoglio, and Breit were all satisfied the claimant suffered injury to her neck and back as a result of the accident, as was Medical Assessor Menogue.
4. The claimant relies on Dr Bentivoglio's opinion and argues that her neck pain is secondary to C4/5 and C5/6 mild discopathy and that her back pain is the result of disc changes at L3/4 and L4/5. Dr Breit diagnosed soft tissue injury to the claimant's neck, thoracic spine and lumbar spine. Medical Assessor Menogue diagnosed soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine and soft tissue injury of the cervical spine "with radicular elements".
5. An MRI of the cervical spine performed on 13 March 2024 showed small disc bulges at C4/5 and C5/6 levels. These findings, together with Dr Bentivoglio's opinion, and the symptoms reported by the claimant satisfy me that as a result of the accident the claimant suffered disc injuries to her cervical spine at C4/5 and C5/6 levels. I am satisfied that as a result of her cervical spine injury the claimant experiences radicular symptoms in her left arm.
6. The MRI of the lumbar spine identified changes at L2/3 and L3/4 levels. I am satisfied that as a result of the accident the claimant suffered injury to her lumbar spine at these levels together with soft tissue injury to her low back.
7. There is no dispute the claimant suffers post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the accident. The diagnosis is supported by Medical Assessor Sidorov and Drs Roberts, Anderson, George and Berry. Dr George also diagnosed major depression with anxious mood. In addition to post-traumatic stress disorder, Dr Roberts diagnosed adjustment disorder that he thought may become chronic.
8. Having considered the circumstances in which the accident occurred, the symptoms reported by the claimant, and the medico-legal evidence, I find that as a result of the accident she suffers chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
9. The claimant's physical symptoms have not resolved, and her psychological symptoms persist. I accept Dr Roberts' opinion that the claimant has an adjustment disorder that developed consequent upon her accident caused physical injuries. I find that the adjustment disorder is now chronic.

1. In her written submissions the claimant argues that a close study of the restrictions identified by Dr Dias would suggest she is "effectively for practical purposes physically unemployable". The claimant argues that her restrictions with respect to walking, standing, and sitting mean she is not a viable employment proposition in respect of any job that involved "even the most moderate physical effort".
2. The submissions also canvas the various opinions of psychiatrists who have assessed the impact of the accident caused psychological injury on the claimant's work capacity including the impact on her motivation, tiredness, concentration and mood. Particular emphasis and reliance were placed on the opinion of Dr Anderson in relation to the claimant's capacity to work.
3. The claimant's case is that as a result of her accident caused injuries, she could not cope with the stressful demands of a law course let alone the stresses involved in legal practice even if she were able to complete a law degree. She argues it is unlikely she could gain entry to a post-graduate law course.
4. With respect to her teaching aspirations, the claimant argues that she is now grossly disabled. Her case is that she is unable to work as a physical education teacher. In terms of teaching generally she argues her emotional state is fragile, she has difficulty dealing with people and will have difficulty with course work and teaching because of her memory, concentration and focus issues, as well as fatigue.
5. At [43] the claimant argues she is totally incapacitated for a career in law and partially incapacitated for a career as a schoolteacher to the point that she is likely to struggle to both obtain and maintain an employed position as a schoolteacher.
6. At [44] the claimant refers to Mr Martin's opinion that she has a partial capacity for work earning approximately $627 net a week. It is argued that something similar could "possibly be made on average" as a casual/part-time teacher or alternatively a teacher that spends much of her time unemployed either because she is unable to maintain any position in which she was engaged or having difficulty securing further employment. Using "this figure of residual capacity" would, it is submitted, be an assumption in favour of the insurer.
7. In oral submissions Mr Daley argued that the claimant can't be a physical education teacher because she can't do the physical work. He emphasised the claimant's evidence with respect to pain and the impact pain had on her ability to concentrate. In his submission the claimant could not satisfy the core occupational physical requirements involved in work as a high school physical education teacher. That, in Mr Daley's submission, left her in the position of having to apply for work in a "very niche area", assuming she can physically do the work and "handle the stress." Mr Daley argued the claimant is competing for a role in a very limited market, in a restricted number of schools, against other able-bodied people who can work five days a week.
8. In Mr Daleys' submission the claimant was unlikely to get a job. He argued that on all the evidence her injuries were still impacting her five years after the accident, that there would be further deterioration in her condition, and that she was "only going to get worse" in terms of her physical capacity.

1. Mr Daley accepted the claimant could work perhaps one or two days a week but argued she would struggle to find a part-time teaching role. He emphasised her evidence that when she moves, she gets pain, that she has trouble concentrating, and will also have trouble lifting, carrying, standing and walking. Mr Daley referred to the change in the claimant's temperament, including irritability, and submitted this was something that would become a problem while teaching. Mr Dailey also referred to the symptoms attributable to the claimant's abdominal injuries and submitted those injuries, together with the claimant's walking and standing limitations, would make playground duties and attending excursions difficult.
2. With respect to the impact of the claimant's psychological injuries it was argued that

Dr Anderson's opinion should be accepted because it is most consistent with the claimant's evidence. In Mr Daley's submission, the depression and the adjustment disorder, which are superimposed upon the chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, will remain. 3. It was also argued that unless the claimant is given a dispensation by the university, she may not qualify for a Bachelor of Education because she cannot complete the remaining 35 days of practical experience. If that comes to pass, she will only be awarded the exercise science degree. 4. Finally, reference was made in oral submissions to the recent certification issued following her two days of work in a school, the application for a disability parking permit, and the claimant's willingness to try antidepressant medication. All these matters, it was argued, support a finding that her condition is not improving.

1. Although the insurer's written submissions refer to pre-accident injuries the insurer does not argue these injuries gave rise to ongoing disability or a loss of earning capacity.
2. While the insurer refers to the opinions of Drs Breit, Berry and Mellick with respect to the claimant's earning capacity, it is acknowledged at [4.29] that there may be a finding that her injuries will impede her future earning capacity.
3. In oral submissions the insurer agreed the claimant has a loss of capacity to earn as a result of her accident caused injuries that was likely to be productive of financial loss and that she was entitled to an award for future economic loss. The insurer's case was that the claimant's loss of capacity is "nowhere near as severe as is claimed".

1. In oral submissions Mr Wilson referred to Dr Breit's opinion that there is no significant loss of earning capacity flowing from the orthopaedic injuries. He also argued regard should be had to the fact there is no orthopaedic evidence before the Commission from the claimant stating that her orthopaedic injuries are going to result in a significant loss of earning capacity.
2. Mr Wilson pointed to the absence of an opinion from Dr Bentivoglio with respect to the claimant's earning capacity and argued that it would have been a "very easy matter" for the doctor to be asked to comment on. In his submission, the claimant's medico-legal case on that issue is "conspicuously under-developed".
3. The insurer conceded that the abdominal injuries sustained by the claimant were "grave" and "very unpleasant". It was argued, however, that this aspect of her case was also undeveloped. Mr Wilson submitted the claimant's abdominal injuries do not equate with a substantial loss of earning capacity, and that there are ways to "work around" issues associated with those injuries. In his submission, the abdominal injuries on their own are not consistent with a substantial loss of earning capacity.
4. While there was no dispute the claimant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, there was a dispute about the severity of symptoms and the impact of that condition on her earning capacity. In the insurer's submission, Dr Berry's opinion should be preferred in so far as it relates to the impact of the claimant's psychological injury on her capacity to earn, specifically that she is fit to work full-time from a psychological perspective.
5. The insurer argued that the fact the claimant was on the verge of finishing a double degree is "totally and utterly inconsistent" with someone who has a substantial loss of earning capacity. In the insurer's submission, the claimant has a very substantial residual earning capacity.
6. In Mr Wilson's submission, the pessimism in Dr Dias' report is "breathtaking". He argued the doctor's opinion with respect to the claimant's prognosis and work capacity were "totally divorced from what she has achieved so far" and overly pessimistic.
7. In Mr Wilson's submission, Mr Martin's opinion "can be put in the same category albeit perhaps even worse." The report, it was argued, was "bordering on partisan", was pessimistic and extreme, and absent rationale and reasoning. Mr Martin's opinion was also criticised because he was not aware of the totality of the insurer's medical case and was unaware of Mr Athanasiou's opinion.

1. The claimant is permanently restricted in the work she can perform as a result of ongoing back and neck pain that is made worse by physical activity. As a result of these injuries the claimant has functional limitations with respect to her ability to stand and sit. Using a computer makes her neck and left arm symptoms worse.
2. As a result of her left wrist injury, the claimant is restricted in her ability to lift, grip, type, and undertake heavy and repetitious activities requiring the use of her left hand.
3. With respect to her right leg, where the pain is mostly in her hip and knee, walking and standing cause pain, as do long periods maintaining fixed positions, including sitting.
4. The claimant's abdominal injuries require her to be close to a bathroom after eating and give rise to pain and discomfort.
5. The claimant's pain gives rise to irritability and fatigue and disturbs her sleep. She lacks energy and motivation and is easily distracted. She has experienced difficulties concentrating and with her memory while studying. These difficulties are likely to persist and will impact on her earning capacity.
6. The claimant avoids driving, becomes overwhelmed around people and in crowds, lacks energy and motivation. Her temperament has changed. Her ability to deal with students and parents has been adversely affected as a result. She experiences panic attacks, flashbacks, and nightmares.
7. The claimant has undertaken three placements in schools as part of her Bachelor of Education. She has found the experience exhausting, both physically and cognitively. She had a similar experience in the brief period of casual work she recently performed.
8. Mr Sharobim's report contains a description of the typical physical demands of primary and secondary school teachers. I accept the accuracy of these descriptions. The demands of these roles include: frequent sitting, frequent standing and walking, occasional lifting, pulling, carrying, bending, squatting or crouching, stretching and twisting, occasional to frequent repetitive hand and finger movements, use of office and learning equipment and occasional driving. I would add to these demands engaging with other teachers, students and parents, attending school excursions and camps, and attending school sporting events.
9. I reject the insurer's submission that the claimant's ability to study a double degree full time is evidence that she has the capacity to work full time. Her evidence, that I accept, is that she has been required to attend university one or two days a week, depending on the term. She has been able to pace herself and develop a routine that caters to her functional limitations.
10. The disabilities arising from the claimant's physical injuries, including the abdominal injuries, and her psychological injuries give rise to a clear and permanent loss of capacity to perform the duties associated with working as a teacher or any role that involves similar duties. I find that the claimant has a permanent loss of earning capacity.
11. The claimant's case at its highest is that she is unemployable. In the alternative she argued she could work one, or at most, two days a week.
12. Dr Bentivoglio expressed the opinion that the claimant's neck and back pain would need to be managed with appropriate work and activities. To that extent the doctor did provide an opinion with respect to the claimant's work capacity. Dr Dias thought the claimant would be capable of working as a high school teacher on a part-time basis with restrictions. In his opinion, her injuries are likely to result in a 25% loss of earning capacity. Dr Dias also thought she could work on a part-time basis for up to 30 hours a week, either six hours a day five days a week or 7.5 hours a day four days a week.
13. I accept Dr Dias' opinion that the claimant could not work as a full-time teacher. That finding accords with my assessment of her loss of capacity. It follows that Dr Mellick's opinion about the claimant's work capacity arising from her physical injuries is rejected.
14. Dr Breit did not express an opinion about the claimant's earning capacity; his opinion being sought with respect to the impact of her injuries on her academic performance and study. The doctor's opinion with respect to those matters is rejected in circumstances where I have accepted the claimant's evidence that her injuries have had an adverse impact on her ability to study.
15. Further, I draw an inference that, but for the accident, the claimant's university results would have been better than she has been able to achieve.
16. In terms of the functional impact of the claimant's psychological injuries, Dr George recorded as follows in relation to "adaptation":

"Whilst she is attending a university course, she is not working. However, she is struggling with her course and she has no energy or capacity for anything else. This would be equivalent to working part-time."

1. I agree with this assessment. I also accept Dr Anderson's opinion that, as a result of her psychological injuries, the claimant lacks capacity for full hours. The doctor described the claimant's capacity to work in face-to-face school teaching as "much diminished". Dr Roberts also thought the claimant's injuries would impact on her work capacity. Having accepted the claimant's evidence about her psychological symptoms and the impact those symptoms have on her functioning, I prefer the opinions of Drs George, Anderson and Roberts to that of

Dr Berry. 2. It follows from my findings that I do not accept the opinion of the VCC assessors with respect to the claimant's capacity for work. 3. I am not, however, persuaded that she has no practical earning capacity. While her injuries and consequential disabilities have caused significant difficulties in terms of her university studies, she has persisted and is likely to graduate with two degrees this year. Her ability to undertake a double degree is some evidence that she has a practical earning capacity. 4. None of the medico-legal doctors have expressed the opinion the claimant cannot work at all as a teacher. There is no evidence from any treating doctor to that effect. The certificate issued by the claimant's GP in November 2025 certifies her as having some capacity to work. 5. For the reasons that follow, I am comfortably satisfied that upon completing her double degree, the claimant will have a practical, not just theoretical, capacity to work as a teacher on a part-time basis. 6. While the claimant will not be able to undertake the physical aspects of teaching PDHPE she is likely to have the capacity to teach the theoretical and classroom-based component of that subject. She will also be able to teach religious studies and other subjects. 7. I am not satisfied the claimant will be limited to teaching PDHPE and religious studies. While these were the focus of her university studies, I consider it more likely than not the claimant will be able to teach other subjects. If not maths or science, then business studies, legal studies or one of the many other subjects in the current school curriculum. As the claimant's recent brief period of casual work illustrates, there are various teaching roles available in a school, including as a support teacher or librarian. 8. Even if the claimant is limited to teaching religious studies, which I find is unlikely, I reject the submission that religious studies is a "niche" subject. It is a subject taught at both religious and non-religious schools and is an HSC subject. 9. In terms of the availability of part-time teaching roles, job-share arrangements in workplaces, including schools, are now commonplace. I consider it more likely than not that the claimant will be able to secure a part-time position as a teacher. 10. The insurer argues the claimant is fit to work in non-teaching roles, including as a contract administrator, insurance investigator, and conveyancer. I am satisfied that as a result of her accident caused disabilities the claimant would not be capable of performing those roles on a full-time basis. The functional limitations that have reduced her capacity to work as a teacher will also compromise her ability to work in alternative roles such as those identified in the VCC report. 11. Having evaluated the totality of the evidence and assessed the claimant's practical earning capacity, I find she has a 50% loss of capacity to earn as a result of her accident caused injuries.

1. The claimant is entitled to an award for non-economic loss. This head of damages compensates her for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfigurement: s 1.4 MAI Act. The current maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss is $691,000[9].
2. Once the s 4.11 threshold of 10% impairment is passed, damages for economic loss are assessed without statutory constraint, save that no more than the maximum declared by s 4.13 may be awarded[10].
3. The absence of any "statutory constraint" requires the Commission to adopt the common law's methodology for the assessment of damages for non-economic loss[11]. The maximum has no bearing on the amount proportionate to the claimant's injury; it simply caps what may be awarded.[12]

1. The claimant's written submissions refer to her age, the violent and frightening nature of the accident, her physical and psychological injuries and the impact these injuries have had on her life. Reference is made to the treatment she has required, including multiple surgeries, physical therapy, and counselling. The submissions draw attention to the impact the accident had on the claimant's HSC performance. Reference is also made to the likelihood that she will develop post traumatic arthritic changes and that her psychological state will deteriorate.
2. In the claimant's submission, the accident has robbed her of her final years of school and the "joie de vivre" that comes with the freedom of finishing school and starting adult life. She argues that the appropriate allowance for non-economic loss would exceed the statutory maximum. Accordingly, in the claimant's submission the maximum amount allowed under s 4.13, $691,000, should be awarded.

1. In oral submissions, Mr Daley emphasised the claimant's age, her embarrassment as a result of the scarring, the adverse impact her injuries have had on her concentration, confidence, motivation and functional capacity. Reference was also made to other physical symptoms, including pain, migraines, and abdominal symptoms. Mr Daley also referred at length to the claimant's written statements.
2. Mr Daley submitted the claimant's progress is likely to be towards deterioration and flare-ups, particularly in respect to her psychological injury. There was, in Mr Daley's submission, "60-odd years of this to play out". Mr Daley reiterated the submission that the appropriate award would be above the maximum and that, because of the statutory cap, the maximum should be awarded.

1. In its written submissions, the insurer disputed the contention that the claimant's injuries will not improve. Reference was made to the opinion of Dr Berry with respect to the claimant's psychiatric prognosis, and Dr Mellick's opinion that the claimant is not suffering from a neurological condition. There is also reference to the opinion expressed by both doctors with respect to the claimant's earning capacity. The insurer submitted that the award sought for this head of damages is excessive and that an amount of $200,000 was appropriate.
2. In oral submissions, Mr Wilson acknowledged the accident was "grave" and would have been very frightening. It was also conceded that there will be a "not insubstantial award" for non-economic loss. However, in Mr Wilson's submission, the award sought by the claimant for this head is "totally and utterly inconsistent" with what she has achieved despite the nature of her injuries and despite the nature of the accident. In Mr Wilson's submission the award would be in the order of $300,000 "or thereabouts".

1. I have earlier made findings with respect to the injuries sustained by the claimant as a result of the accident. She was 17 years old at the time of the accident and had just finished year 11 at school the week the accident occurred. In her statement dated 16 November 2020 the claimant described the immediate aftermath of the accident. She was trapped in her car, the airbags had activated, and the car body was crumpled in around her. She saw her father and heard him screaming. The claimant described feeling terror at being trapped in her car, knowing she was injured, being unable to move or leave the vehicle without assistance, and feeling excruciating pain, mingled with daze and shock.

1. The claimant told Mr Sharobim that she woke up while the paramedic was trying to get her out of the vehicle and that she was trapped for more than 60 minutes before she was extricated by Emergency Services personnel.
2. Following the accident the claimant was taken by ambulance to St George Hospital where she was admitted. She was in hospital for approximately a month. The discharge referral from the hospital records that she was involved in a head-on collision at 70kmph "with prolonged extraction".
3. The claimant was discharged from hospital on crutches on 24 September 2020. While in hospital she underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the right femur and left distal radius. A diagnostic laparoscopy was converted to laparotomy. A segmental sigmoid resection and partial caecectomy with appendicectomy were performed. The discharge referral records there were a number of complications while the claimant was in hospital; she had "SVT" (supraventricular tachycardia) and "C. diff colitis" (bacteria in the colon), the symptoms of which are recorded in the discharge referral. She may require further surgery to remove the metal that remains in situ. The claimant has subsequently been treated with medication, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and counselling. Treatment continues.
4. When she returned to school the claimant required and was given disability dispensations. Her performance in the HSC was adversely affected. Her performance at university, and her enjoyment of her university experience, has been diminished.
5. In addition to the physical and psychological injuries she suffered the claimant also has scarring to her abdominal region, left wrist, right hip and thigh, and right knee. The scarring has caused her distress.
6. Since the accident the claimant has experienced pain in her neck, back, right leg, hip and knee. Her abdominal injuries continue to cause her discomfort and the other symptoms she has described in her evidence. The impact of the abdominal injuries is significant. Those injuries affect what and when she can eat and she needs to be in close proximity to a bathroom.
7. The claimant experiences difficulty with concentration and memory. She has trouble sleeping, avoids driving, becomes overwhelmed in crowds, lacks energy and motivation and is "always tired". Psychological symptoms include panic attacks. Her temperament has changed; she is easily irritated and becomes angry easily.
8. The claimant has been unable to return to her pre-accident sport and hobbies. Prior to the accident she participated in netball as both a player and a coach. The claimant's relationships with family and friends have been adversely impacted.
9. In his statement, [CAM] described his observations of the claimant before and after the accident. I accept his evidence about these matters.
10. The accident has had a profound effect on this young person's life. It occurred at a critical juncture; just prior to her entering year 12 and undertaking her HSC. She will have to live with the impact of her injuries and disabilities for the rest of her life. Her pain and suffering has been, and will be, significant. She will turn 23 this year. Her life expectancy on the medium tables is 64 years. I award $530,000 for this head.

1. The claimant is entitled to damages for past and future economic loss if she proves that because of her accident caused injuries and consequential disabilities she has suffered a diminution of her earning capacity that is or may be productive of financial loss.[13] If these matters are proved she is to be compensated by an amount that reflects the financial consequences that follow from the impairment.[14]
2. In order to determine the claimant's lost earning capacity and determine what sum will put her in the same position she would have been in if injury had not been sustained, it is necessary to identify both what capacity has been lost and what economic consequences will probably flow from that loss.[15]
3. Since what is involved is not the finding of historical facts on the balance of probabilities, but the assessment of the value of a chance, it is appropriate to take into account a range of possible outcomes even though the likelihood of any particular outcome being achieved may be no more than a real possibility.[16]
4. Earning capacity must be measured by reference to the individual, when viewed with all her characteristics, in the labour market. The identification of occupations which are theoretically available is only part of the task. There must also be a practical assessment of the likelihood of the individual obtaining employment in some such occupation.[17]

1. The claimant's case is that but for the accident she would have undertaken part time work in the retail or hospitality industries to pay her way through university and give herself a moderate degree of economic independence. The claimant argues that she has for all practical purposes been totally unfit for undertaking these endeavours as a result of the accident. She seeks an award of $60,000 for past economic loss by way of a buffer representing a loss of $15,000 over a period of four years.
2. The insurer's case is that there should be no allowance for past economic loss. In the insurer's submission, there appears to have been no delay to the claimant completing school or commencing and continuing her university studies as a result of the accident. It was also submitted that as the claimant qualifies for Austudy payments, that any earnings would potentially influence the value of those payments, and that she is disincentivised from engaging in employment because of the impact any earnings would have on her Austudy payments.

1. The claimant's evidence, that I accept, is that after leaving school she worked in a retail store for about four months, undertaking a four-hour shift, three to four days a week. Her employment was terminated when the owners of the business found out about her injuries.
2. In recent times she has worked for two days at a primary school in a casual role. This work was described in the report of Mr Sharobim.[18] The claimant found the work difficult, attended her GP, and was certified as having a limited work capacity.
3. I have found the claimant has a loss of capacity to earn as a result of her accident caused injuries. I accept her evidence that had the accident not occurred she would have undertaken part-time retail work. I find that it is probable she would have undertaken work of this nature on weekends and during university holidays.
4. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant's loss of capacity has resulted in past financial loss. Her ability to cope with the physical demands of retail work has been compromised by her accident caused injuries and disabilities, including pain. Her psychological injuries also impede her ability to perform work of this nature.
5. I award a buffer of $20,000 inclusive of superannuation for the claimant's past economic loss.

1. In her written submissions the claimant argued that before the accident it was her intention to become a lawyer or a teacher and that her preference was to become a lawyer. She submitted that her pre-accident academic results indicate she had the capacity to become a lawyer. In the claimant's submission, the consensus of the medical and vocational assessments is that she was a "well above average student". Accordingly, she argues that it could be reasonably inferred that but for the accident her economic and vocational future was likely to be favourable.
2. In the claimant's submission her economic loss should be calculated on one of three alternate bases, namely:

(a) but for the accident she would have become a qualified lawyer with at least average success, or

(b) that she would eventually qualify as a schoolteacher but be restricted in that endeavour, or

(c) average weekly earnings.

1. At [44] of her written submissions the claimant refers to Mr Martin's opinion that she has a partial capacity for employment earning $627 net a week. She submits "something similar could, possibly, be made on average" in her capacity as a casual part time teacher or a teacher that spends "much of her time unemployed". In her submission, utilising the "suggested figure of residual capacity" would be an assumption favourable to the insurer.
2. At [46] of the claimant's written submissions her economic loss claim is quantified by reference to the following three scenarios:

$2,049 a week - $627[19] = $1422 x 966.6[20] less 15% for vicissitudes = $1,168,329 +

$2,000 net a week - $627 = $1,373 x 966.6 less for vicissitudes 15%

$1,593 - $627 = $966 x 966.6 less 15% for vicissitudes.

1. The claimant's case at hearing was that her most likely future circumstances but for the accident were that she would study and then practice law. It was argued that if she "hadn't done any good at it" she would have had the fallback option of school teaching.
2. Mr Daley argued that while the claimant might get some part-time teaching, schools generally need fulltime teachers for the continuity of their students and don't want students taught by different teachers. In Mr Daley's submission, teaching part-time was not something the claimant could build a career on. Mr Daley also emphasised what he argued was the very limited market for "religious teachers".
3. Mr Daley referred to the claimant's evidence that she has only been required to attend one or two days a week at university, as well as her evidence that she had not been able to cope with the brief casual work she had performed at a school. He referred to the medical certificate that had subsequently provided by her GP which he submitted "basically says she couldn't cope". In Mr Daley's submission, the claimant was unlikely to be a teacher, unlikely to sustain work as a teacher, and likely to be unemployable.
4. Mr Daley argued that this is not a case in which a buffer should be awarded other than to augment an award formulated in the conventional way (see Scenario A above). This is because the claimant's incapacity is permanent and is quantifiable by reference to one of the three scenarios she relies on.
5. It was also argued that the award should take into account the fact that a number of doctors said there is a likelihood of deterioration. That being the case, it was submitted that there should be a buffer awarded to compensate the claimant for the possibility she will have to retire early.
6. Despite relying on some aspects of Dr Dias' opinion, Mr Daley argued that the doctor's opinion that the claimant has a 25% loss of capacity is an unrealistic assessment of "the real world". In his submission, her incapacity must be greater than 25%.

1. The claimant's supplementary written submissions dated 29 January 2026 respond to the insurer's submissions dated 9 January 2026. It is argued that decisions including Thorn v Monteleone [2021] NSWCA 319 (referred to in the insurer's submissions) permit, as a matter of law, the approach submitted by the claimant (see scenario A).

1. In its written submissions the insurer argued that a cushion of $100,000 should be awarded for this head.
2. In oral submissions, Mr Wilson argued that teaching was the claimant's dream career, she had a passion for teaching, and her career goal from "day dot" has always been to work as a teacher and that never really changed. In his submission, although she probably did think about being a lawyer, ultimately "her number one priority" was to become a teacher.
3. Mr Wilson referred to and relied on the claimant's university application and the language she used in that application. In his submission, what is recorded in that document supported the insurer's case that the claimant's most likely future circumstances but for the accident involve her working as a teacher.
4. The insurer argued that the likelihood of the claimant not finishing both degrees is minimal and not consistent with what had occurred to date in terms of her progress in the degrees and the willingness of the university to accommodate her restrictions.
5. It was also argued that the claimant's ability to study two degrees fulltime, and the fact she has not failed a course, indicates that the impact of her injuries on her earning capacity had been minimal. The insurer also relied on the opinion of Drs Breit and Mellick with respect to the impact of the claimant's physical injuries on her earning capacity and, with respect to the psychological injuries, Dr Berry's opinion, including that there may be improvement in the claimant's psychological condition.
6. In the insurer's submission, given the claimant's age, difficulties associated with quantifying her residual earning capacity, and given her limited past employment history, the appropriate way to assess damages for future economic loss was by way of a buffer. To the extent there was a possibility the claimant but for the accident may have studied law and become a lawyer, the insurer argued that loss of opportunity can be compensated in the buffer award.
7. Mr Wilson submitted that if the insurer's case at its highest were accepted the figure of $100,000 referred to in the written submissions would be awarded for this head. It was argued that a buffer award would allow the claimant to be compensated fairly, and reference was made in this context to Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244.

1. In its brief supplementary written submissions dated 9 January 2026 the insurer referred to: Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61 at [44] - [61], various summaries of the law found in sources such as the Judicial Commission of NSW Civil Trials Bench Book, s 4.7 of the MAI Act, and the commentary in Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury & Death 5th Edition. In the insurer's submission none of this supports the proposition that there would be an additional buffer awarded in this case in respect of an alleged loss of career opportunity.
2. The insurer argued that even if the Commission was persuaded the claimant had been deprived of a possible opportunity to embark on a legal career, the proper approach when assessing future loss of earning capacity would be to adjust the contingencies. It was argued that in this case the adjustment would necessarily be very minor given: the possibility the claimant would have realistically embarked on legal studies much less a legal career is remote; even if she did, her prospects of success in that field are either undeveloped in the evidence or negative.
3. Finally, the insurer argued that while the Court of Appeal in Thorn v Monteleone [2021] NSWCA 319 at [48] to [51] upheld an additional buffer for future economic loss to compensate the plaintiff for the future prospect of becoming a farm manager or operating his own farm, that case turned on its own facts and is easily distinguished.

1. I have made findings about the impact the claimant's injuries have on her capacity to earn. I have found she has a loss of capacity to earn that is permanent. I am satisfied she has a residual earning capacity.
2. The award for future economic loss must be made in compliance with s 4.7 of the MAI Act. The section reads as follows:

"4.7 Future economic loss - claimant's prospects and adjustments

(1) Damages may not be awarded for future economic loss unless the claimant first satisfies the court or Commission that the assumptions about future earning capacity or other events on which the award is to be based accord with the claimant's most likely future circumstances but for the injury.

(2) The amount of damages for future economic loss that would have been sustained on those assumptions is to be adjusted by reference to the percentage possibility that the events concerned might have occurred but for the injury.

(3) If an award for future economic loss is made, the court or Commission is required to state the assumptions on which the award was based and the relevant percentage by which damages were adjusted."

1. There is no doubt that before the accident the claimant was performing well at school. I have taken into consideration her evidence that she was considering both law and teaching. I have also taken into consideration [CAM]'s evidence about the discussions he had with the claimant in relation to her becoming a lawyer.
2. I am satisfied the claimant's HSC marks were adversely affected as a result of the accident and that but for the accident it is likely she would have achieved a higher ATAR. I consider it unlikely, however, that had the accident not occurred the claimant would have achieved the ATAR required to be offered a place in a law degree at "one of the better universities". In this regard I accept Dr Anthanasou's opinion. I infer that the universities referred to in the table on page 6 of his report are the "better universities" referred to by the claimant in her statement. I am not satisfied the claimant's most likely future circumstances involved her studying law after completing the HSC.
3. The following matters satisfy me that the claimant's most likely future circumstances but for the accident were that she would study teaching at university and subsequently work full-time as a teacher:

(a) the claimant's evidence that before the accident she wanted to become a teacher or a lawyer;

(b) uninjured the claimant would not have achieved the marks required to be offered a position in a law course at "one of the better universities", and

(c) the claimant's responses contained in the university application.

1. As to the last of these three matters, while I accept the claimant was "putting her best foot forward" in her university application, I am satisfied she had wanted to be a teacher for many years, was passionate about becoming a teacher, and that teaching was a vocation she was seriously contemplating.
2. Although I accept the claimant also considered a career in law, s 4.7 stipulates that the assumptions about future earning capacity or other events on which the award for future economic loss is to be based accord with her most likely future circumstances but for her injuries.

1. I am satisfied that but for her accident caused injuries the claimant is likely to have had a successful career as a teacher and achieved promotions and seniority such that she may have been appointed a head teacher or to some other leadership position within a school. These roles would have attracted increased earnings and allowances.[23]
2. I find that but for the accident the claimant would have worked until she was 67 years of age. It is possible she will retire early as a result of her injuries, a matter addressed by Dr Dias.
3. There is no reason, in my assessment, to depart from the orthodox approach of applying a reduction of 15% to the award to reflect vicissitudes.
4. I consider it probable the claimant will satisfy the course requirements to be awarded a Bachelor of Education and a Bachelor of Exercise Science and will graduate this year. She has been given concessions with respect to the physical aspects of the courses, undertaking alternative tasks instead.[24] She has completed school placements over the proceeding years. It is probable she will either complete the final 35-day placement or be granted a dispensation with respect to that requirement. On this background, I consider it improbable that, after completing four years of a four-and-a-half-year double degree, the claimant will not be awarded those degrees.
5. The parties have filed competing schedules setting out various net weekly earnings. The insurer's schedule relates to the gross earnings referred to in the VCC report. The claimant's schedule contains net earnings by reference to the VCC report and the Award.
6. I consider the figures in the Award to be the most reliable measure of the claimant's likely earnings as a teacher. I accept as accurate the net figures in the claimant's schedule.
7. I find that over a period of 10 years from graduation it is probable the claimant would have achieved the highest level on the salary scale for a teacher under Schedule 1A of the Award. Her pre-accident school performance, her passion for teaching, and her other attributes are such that uninjured the claimant was likely to have been appointed a Highly Accomplished/Lead Teacher after a period of 10 years and would have been remunerated at that classification.
8. I have determined that the claimant's future economic loss should be measured by adopting a figure of $1,600, representing the average of the net weekly teacher salary for Steps 1 - 7 in Schedule 1A of the Award, for 10 years (Period 1) and thereafter adopting a figure of $2,100 to age 67 (Period 2).

1. This approach allows for the likelihood that, uninjured, over the next decade the claimant would have progressed through Steps 1 - 7 in Schedule 1A and ultimately been classified as a Highly Accomplished/Lead Teacher. A figure of $2,100 has been adopted thereafter for a period of 34 years reflecting Highly Accomplished/Lead Teacher earnings under Schedule 1A with an uplift to take into account likely salary increases for that classification over a 10-year period.
2. I am also satisfied a buffer of $100,000 inclusive of superannuation should be awarded to reflect the possibility the claimant will be required to retire early, the likelihood she has been deprived of the opportunity to take on a more senior position such as those referred to in Schedules 2A and 3 in the Award, and the likelihood she has been deprived of the potential allowances under Sch 7 of the Award. While each case must turn on its own facts, that an additional allowance by way of a buffer may be awarded to compensate the claimant for these losses is supported by authorities including Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128 and Thorn v Monteleone; Thorn v Kelly [2021] NSWCA 319.
3. Having found the claimant has a 50% loss of capacity to earn as a teacher, I award the sum of $854,669 for future economic loss calculated as follows:

$1,600 x 50% = $800 x 412.0 (multiplier for 10 years) less 15% for vicissitudes

$2,100 x 50% = $1,050 x 0.614 (deferred multiplier for 10 years) x 865.9 (multiplier for 34 years) less 15% for vicissitudes

1. I am satisfied the approach I have adopted will put the claimant in the position she would have been in if she had not been injured and has resulted in a fair award.
2. A claim for loss of future superannuation is made as recorded in the claimant's written submissions at [47]. I award the sum of $105,654 for loss of future superannuation calculated at 14% of the award for future economic loss for Periods 1 and 2.
3. There is also a claim for interest on past economic loss. There is no evidence before me that supports a finding that s 4.16 is engaged. I make no allowance.

1. No weekly payments have been made by the insurer. No deduction is to be made from the award.

1. The insurer is to pay the claimant's costs and disbursements in accordance with the MAI Act and Regulations. I informed the parties at the assessment hearing that I proposed to make this order in circumstances where there was agreement in relation to the claimant's disbursements.

1. The claimant made an application for this decision to be de-identified. The application was not opposed by the insurer.
2. These reasons contain sensitive personal information. Having weighed the matters referred to in rule 132(4) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules, including the safety, health and wellbeing of the claimant, and whether the public interest in giving the direction significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice, I am satisfied the decision should be de-identified before it is published.
3. The Commission directs that, pursuant to rule 132 of the Rules, the decision be de-identified prior to publication.

[1] As recorded earlier, the claimant does not allege a brain injury.

[2] Report of A/Professor Adie dated 16 January 2023.

[3] Report of Dr Sungaran dated 22 February 2023.

[4] History in MRI cervical and lumbar spine report dated 15 March 2024.

[5] See the reasons of Medical Assessors Menogue, Berry and Sidorov.

[6] Report dated 28 February 2024 at [7.4].

[7] Report dated 23 June 2025 at [6.4].

[8] Report dated 29 July 2025 at [10].

[9] Section 4.13 MAI Act as adjusted by cl 5 Motor Accident Injuries (Indexation) Order (No 2) 2025.

[10] Hodgson v Crane (2002) 55 NSWLR 199; 36 MVR 551; [2002] NSWCA 276 at [39] per Heydon JA (Sheller JA and Davies AJA agreeing).

[11] RACQ Insurance Ltd v Motor Accidents Authority (NSW) and Others (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1126 at [25].

[12] RACQ Insurance Ltd v Motor Accidents Authority (NSW) and Others (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1126 at [30].

[13] Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340 at [347] Dixon CJ, Kitto and Taylor JJ; Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1 at [3] per Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ; McHugh J at [16].

[14] Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138; at [6].

[15] Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138 at [7] - [8].

[16] State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133 Heydon JA at [87].

[17] Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121 at [65].

[18] Functional Assessment dated 11 December 2025 page 6.

[19] Residual earning capacity - see Mr Martin's report.

[20] Multiplier for 48 years on the 5% tables.

[21] To compensate for the possibility of earnings significantly higher than the base earnings referred to by

[23] See for example Sch 2A and 7 in the Award.

[24] Claimant's statement dated 27 October 2025 at [43].