Issued under s 7.36 (1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

Assessment of Claim for Damages made in accordance with s 7.36 of the Act

1. On the issue of liability for the claim, the Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA's insured owed a duty of care to the claimant, breached that duty of care and the claimant sustained injury loss and damage as a result of the breach of duty.
2. Under a sub-sections 7.36 (3) and 7.36 (4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act). I specify the amount of damages for this claim as $1,501,251.
3. The amount of the claimant's costs, taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, $92,689.27 inclusive of GST.
4. Attached to this certificate are reasons for my assessment.

1. Jacob Buller (the claimant) is a 21-year-old man who was horrifically injured in a motor vehicle accident on 29 August 2023. On that day he was riding his motorcycle home from work on Renshaw Street in Cranebrook, when the insured driver exited the driveway of Young Academics Daycare Centre and attempted to turn right, without giving way to the claimant, and collided with him causing him to fly off his motorcycle and land on the roadway. The insurer has admitted breach of duty of care on the part of its insured driver with no allegation of contributory negligence.
2. Noting the multiple fractures very serious injuries sustained by the claimant, the parties have agreed that the injuries are non-threshold injuries and that the claimant has sustained a degree of whole person impairment of an excess of 10% as a consequence of the injuries caused by the motor accident.
3. The parties agree that past economic loss totals $151,251 which includes past wage loss, past loss of employer superannuation benefits and payments made by the insurer to the Australian Taxation Office on behalf of the claimant that is those payments known as Fox v Wood payments.
4. Accordingly, the only matters requiring assessment are non-economic loss and the future economic loss consequent on the injuries and post-accident physical and psychiatric disabilities suffered by the claimant. In my view, it is appropriate to provide some background on the claimant, and his circumstances at the time of the accident, and then consider the medical material particularly as it addresses his future earning capacity.

1. The claimant is a 21-year-old man who, prior to the accident, was in very good health. He completed his HSC in 2022 and on 15 November 2022 started work with Australia Post as a postal delivery officer - motorcycle. His duties were delivering household mail and small parcels on a motorcycle. He was employed in this occupation at the time of the accident.
2. There has been no suggestion from the insurer, or indeed anyone else, that the claimant is anything other than an honest and totally credible witness. There was no suggestion that he had sought to lead the insurer, his healthcare providers or medico-legal assessors in any way, shape or form.
3. I found the claimant to be an honest and forthright young man who has been absolutely and horrifically devastated by the injuries he sustained in the accident and the ongoing consequence of these injuries.
4. He had expressed an intention of working and saving money to allow him to travel to Africa with his brother for a short break. He stated an expressed intention of continuing to work whilst undertaking his education studies. He expressed a desire to obtain employment as a Range Field Officer or Ranger with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. He expressed an abiding interest working outdoors, with animals and showed no hesitation in any occupation which required arduous physical activities.
5. He can be fairly described as having been an honest, hard-working, highly motivated young man. Following the motor vehicle accident, he is a shell of what he once was.

1. The claimant suffered numerous and significant orthopaedic injuries upon being struck by the insured vehicle. These included damage to the right knee, significant injuries to his neck and lower back, including a fracture in his lumbar spine, multiple fractures to his pelvis, injuries to both his left and right wrist, internal bleeding, ruptured bladder, lacerations, injuries to his penis and testicles.
2. At the assessment conference the claimant, in a remarkable display of courage, outlined those injuries which most trouble him today.
3. As a result of the nerve damage to his right leg, he is obliged to wear a leg brace to remedy the right foot drop. He has leg shortening in the right leg which requires 8mm orthotics. If he does not wear his brace or shoes, he limps which causes serious lower back pain. The weakness in his right ankle causes him to fall from time to time. He has pain in his lower back which occurs typically after sitting for prolonged periods.
4. The fractures to his pelvis have caused significant bladder issues which result in poor flow rate on urination, a need to urinate often (up to 10 times a day) and inability to void his bladder completely resulting in leakage and pain in his bladder. He needs to use a urinary stimulator, which vibrates quite loudly causing embarrassment. As he stated:

1. He has effectively lost all sexual function. He is unable to obtain an erection. This is even with medications, including Cialis 5mg, which he takes to try to maintain some degree of sexual function.
2. He has a reduced capacity to use his arms and hands. He has reduced strength dexterity and finds it difficult to use his right hand. Everyday activity such as opening bottles are often beyond his capacity.
3. The insurer relies on a report of Dr Gothelf dated 11 December 2024. This report opines that the claimant will likely need to consider sedentary roles and may pursue training in areas which are suitable for his physical restrictions,

"There are knowing post restrictions. Rather Mr Buller should be allowed to start in a suitable role and increase his physical abilities as tolerated."

1. This somewhat optimistic opinion on the claimant's residual earning capacity does not seem to take into account the very comprehensive nature of the physical injuries that he sustained. He has grave difficulties walking. He does so with leg shortening and foot drop. He has very significant problems with his lumbar spine. This impairment, of itself, would greatly diminish his earning capacity. He cannot sit for prolonged periods of time. He has constant pain. He has very significant problems using his arms and hands. These fractures caused great problems with his day-to-day activities. He is greatly troubled by urological issues which cause degrading problems including a requirement to urinate often and urine leakage on a regular basis. I do not consider that Gothelf has given weight to the very debilitating injuries he sustained particularly noting their effects on the claimant's urological systems, his lower extremities, his upper extremities and his spine.
2. The claimant also suffers very significant psychological injuries. The report of Dr Bisht dated 3 February 2025 diagnoses post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder secondary to the physical injuries caused by the accident. He recommends monthly appointments with a psychiatrist, fortnightly appointments with a psychologist for a duration of about 9 to 12 months. He also advises that the claimant ought to have cognitive behavioural therapy and trauma focused therapy. The report notes that the claimant ought to continue to be medicated to treat his psychological and psychiatric difficulties.
3. Dr Bisht proposes restrictions including no roles where face-to-face customer service is required, short breaks after every 30 minutes of sustained concentration, no requirement for independent and decision-making on complex matters and no roles where driving is a requirement.
4. The report does suggest that the claimant has some residual learning capacity to possibly work two to three hours a day three days a week and also contends that the claimant's condition has not reached maximal improvement.
5. What is clear is that, in addition to the devastating physical injuries and consequent difficulties the claimant suffers from, he also suffers from a very significant psychiatric injury which in my view, have greatly impaired the claimant's earning capacity, effectively ending it in the short term. When the claimant's psychological impairments are considered in conjunction with his physical impairments makes out the claimant's submission that his working capacity has been effectively destroyed at least in the short to medium term.

1. The parties agree past economic loss totals $151,251.

1. The claimant submitted that non-economic loss should be allowed in the sum of $600,000. At the assessment conference the insurer submitted that figure of in the order of $475,000 was an appropriate allowance for economic loss.
2. I note the claimant is a 21-year-old man. He has a projected life expectancy of about 62 years. I note that his injuries have effectively destroyed his working capacity, at least for the foreseeable future. He suffers ongoing pain, reduced use of his arms and legs affecting all aspects of his day to day life, embarrassing and debilitating neurological issues, and almost complete loss of sexual function as well as serious and significant symptoms consequent on post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder.
3. The claimant's physical and psychological injuries have been devastating to him. He is a very young man who now has great impediments in undertaking any type of physical activity. He suffers grave emotional and mental disorders consequence on his post action of injuries and disabilities, in particular those ongoing problems in relation to his sexual function. In my view, the injuries and disabilities have all but destroyed his capacity to engage in his pre-accident social, sporting, domestic and recreational activities.
4. I assess non-economic loss in the sum of $550,000.

1. The claimant submitted that future economic loss would be allowed on the basis of his loss of earnings as a postman for a period of seven years and thereafter loss of earnings on the basis of his inability to work as a park ranger. This gives rise to a figure of over $1,000,000 plus loss of superannuation benefits. The insurer has admitted that future economic loss allowed by the figure of in the order of $150,000.
2. The difficulty in calculating any precise loss of years is that the claimant, who was only 19 at the time of the accident, whilst expressing a desire for the types of occupations he would like to enter into has not let the requisite evidently standard of establishing that such occupations, including that of a park ranger in the employment of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, were probable rather than possible. That said, as the material has established, the claimant was earning about $961.50 net per week at the date of the accident. This was as a 19-year-old and at the very start of his earning life. As I have outlined above, I do not consider that the claimant has any reasonable prospects of any employment at least for the foreseeable future. It may be that in the latter part of his life he could find some degree of recovery, some psychiatric stability and the motivation to try to retrain himself and put himself in a position where some types of employment, in which he is able to undertake not withstanding his physical and psychiatric difficulties, may be undertaken.
3. As I have outlined above the physical difficulties he would face, in terms of his ability to move himself around, undertake tasks with his upper arms, endure the constant pain, manage his urological difficulties and find some psychiatric stability will all need to occur before even the most rudimentary part-time employment would become available to him.
4. In my view, it is appropriate to provide a buffer for future economic loss based on a figure loosely reflective of 90% of his pre-accident net weekly earnings. This takes into account the likelihood of the claimant's earnings increasing as he obtained further skills, further promotions or obtain work in more lucrative employment endeavours as well as offsetting the possibility of such matters against the possibility that he may find some degree of recovery and be able to undertake some employment tasks, albeit on a part-time basis, working reduced hours and in a very narrow field which will enable him to manage both his physical and psychological disabilities.
5. By applying this figure, of roughly $850 per week for the remainder of his working life expectancy and reducing it for 15% for the vicissitude which may otherwise have made such calculations somewhat irrelevant, and adding the loss of employer-based superannuation contributions and benefits this gives rise to a figure of in the order of $800,000.
6. I access the claimant's future economic loss, including loss of superannuation benefits, and the sum of $800,000.

1. I attach the cost calculation schedule. I note the insurer is to have credit for the payments made totalling $99,526.79.
2. I note the claimant's entitlement to non-economic loss, the allowance for future economic loss and the parties' agreement of past economic loss totalling $151,251, I assess the total damages in the sum of $1,501,251 plus costs in the amount of $92,689.27.