1. The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in the sum of $250,000.

1. On 15 February 2024, Mr Gerasimos Deftereos (the claimant) was injured when walking in a car park of a club in Lakemba when a driver backed over him.
2. Mr Deftereos made a claim against the insurer, Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (insurer).
3. The insurer has wholly accepted liability for the claim for common law damages.
4. The insurer has accepted, pursuant to Division 3.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), Mr Deftereos is entitled to payment of reasonable treatment and care for the rest of his life for his accident caused injuries.
5. Mr Deftereos and the insurer have reached agreement as to settlement of the claim for damages.
6. Because Mr Deftereos is not represented by a lawyer, the settlement must be approved in accordance with the Act.
7. The insurer has lodged the application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration.
8. The insurer and Mr Deftereos have agreed he is entitled to damages for non-economic loss; only.

1. Approval of the settlement is required under s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with the requirements of the Act and Motor Accident Guidelines (Guidelines).
2. Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:

(a) the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessment for the claim were the matter to be assessed by a Member, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by Mr Deftereos, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement, and

(b) Mr Deftereos understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.

1. I have considered the documents provided with the insurer's application including, but not limited to, insurer's submissions, settlement communications, health care records and clinical notes, reports from rehabilitation medical experts, capacity certificate, radiology investigations, and medical reports.

1. Mr Deftereos is 85-years-old in July this year.
2. Following the accident, Mr Deftereos was conveyed by ambulance to Concord Repatriation General Hospital.
3. He came under the care of Dr Jai Sungaran who managed a scaphoid fracture and a massive right shoulder rotator cuff tear.
4. Dr Bob Jong, orthopaedic specialist, saw Mr Deftereos as an outpatient at the hospital due to his persisting pain and disability with minimal improvement of his pseudo-paralysis. The doctor noted his axillary nerve was firing; however, he had difficulty forward elevating that shoulder itself.
5. After discussing the risks of nerve and vessel injury, bleeding, stiffness, infection, instability and loosening with Mr Deftereos and his wife, he was happy to proceed with a reverse shoulder replacement procedure which took place on 20 June 2025.
6. Procare Group were engaged by the insurer to monitor and recommend treatment and care for Mr Deftereos. In the report dated 29 August 2025, it is noted Mr Deftereos had not reached his pre-accident capacity and recommended further medical and rehabilitation services which are ongoing.
7. The Certificate of Capacity dated 30 October 2025 to 30 November 2025 reported Mr Deftereos had no capacity and that follow up investigations were necessary to monitor tendonitis/bursitis associated with overuse/imbalance. The report requested X-ray and steroid injection.
8. He was reviewed by occupational therapist Mr Rory Corrigan from Procare Group. The report notes Mr Deftereos continues to experience persistent lower back pain radiating to his hips and knees, increased pain and fatigue and reduced grip strength. His recovery has been poor with ongoing physiotherapy producing minimal benefits.
9. Mr Deftereos has not worked for many years and has been in receipt of an aged pension since his retirement.

1. On receipt of the application of the proposed settlement agreement, I reviewed the documentation.
2. At the first preliminary conference held on 11 December 2025, Mr Deftereos told me he was not happy with the settlement. Further, I noted he had not signed the settlement agreement.
3. I advised the insurer in the circumstances, I would not be approving the settlement. I asked both Mr Deftereos and the insurer if they would like to take this opportunity to review the settlement and to ensure that the agreement was correctly signed.
4. Both parties asked for time to rectify these issues and requested a further preliminary conference which was held on 15 January 2026.
5. I ensured there was an interpreter present and asked Mr Deftereos' support person, Ms Sophy Deftereos, not to discuss or prompt her father during the teleconference and to ensure she understood she was a support person, not an advisor or interpreter.
6. Before the second preliminary conference was held, the insurer provided to me a copy of the proposed settlement agreement signed and dated by Mr Deftereos and a witness.
7. During the second preliminary conference, Mr Deftereos advised me that on the last occasion he was confused about the purpose of the meeting and that he was very happy with the proposed offer of settlement.
8. The interpreter carefully ensured Mr Deftereos understood the amount and the finality of the approval.
9. The proposed offer is for non-economic loss in the sum of $250,000. There is no entitlement to damages for economic loss which Mr Deftereos accepted and told me understood because he had not worked for many years, he did not suffer a past or future economic loss.

1. Mr Deftereos is an elderly gentleman who was fit and healthy before this accident. He cared for his garden and was independent with all his daily activities.
2. His injuries have significantly impaired his mobility. He is having difficulty accepting his disabilities. He is depressed and angry which is partly the reason he initially told me he was unhappy with the settlement amount. He said he was confused about my question and was unhappy about his predicament rather than the amount offered by the insurer to resolve his claim.
3. Mr Deftereos told me he was very happy with the proposed settlement.
4. He understood he is entitled to legal representation but did not wish to engage a lawyer.
5. He further confirmed he understood his entitlement to an assessment of non-economic loss and agreed the amount of $250,000 is a reasonable sum. He also confirmed he understood he is not entitled to past or future economic loss.
6. I am satisfied Mr Deftereos is aware of his right to have his reasonable and necessary treatment expenses paid for the remainder of his life. Whilst the insurer is only liable to pay statutory benefits including treatment and domestic care for five years, thereafter the claim may be transferred to Lifetime Care and Support who will be liable for ongoing reasonable treatment expenses.
7. I am satisfied Mr Deftereos is aware the settlement finalises his entitlements to further common law damages under the Act.
8. I am satisfied Mr Deftereos is happy with the amount of $250,000 clear to him.
9. I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is just, fair, and reasonable. The settlement is within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by Mr Deftereos.
10. I am satisfied Mr Deftereos understands the binding nature of the settlement and that he is precluded from making a further claim for damages arising from the accident. I am satisfied Mr Deftereos is willing to accept the proposed settlement.
11. Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2) and (3) of the Act, I approve the settlement of

Mr Deftereos' claim for damages in the sum of $250,000.