(a) subject to the outcome of the medical assessment, the following kilometre (km) allowances for each attendance in the disputed expenses are considered reasonable for the purpose of calculating travel expenses under s3.24(1)(b):

(i) psychologist, Haberfield: 2.4km;

(ii) chiropractor, Parramatta: 4km;

(iii) general practitioner, Earlwood: 2.4km;

(iv) Associate Professor Papantoniou, Kogarah: 19.8km plus toll difference $1.87; and

(v) physiotherapist, Earlwood: 2.4km.

(b) the balance of the kilometres and tolls claimed in the disputed expenses for attendances on the above treatment providers are not reasonable and are therefore not payable by the insurer.

1. In making this decision, I have considered the following:
   • the Application, Reply and supporting documentation;
   • MAI Act;
   • Motor Accident Guidelines, and
   • the Regulation.

[1] As such, I do not need to address the relevance, if any, of cl 33 of the Regulation.

[2] As such, this determination in this merit review will be dependent on the outcome of the medical assessment to the extent there is an overlap. If the outcome of the medical assessment is that statutory benefits are not payable for any particular treatment that also has a travel expense claim, then the related travel expense will also not be payable by the insurer.

[3] Based on the understanding that if the answer by the medical assessor to Question One is "yes" then the insurer accepts that the answer to Question Three in respect of any related travel expense is also "yes".