MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; assessment of whole person impairment (WPI); claimant suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident; Medical Assessor certified the claimant had sustained 11% WPI as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the accident; pre-existing condition; insurer sought review; Held - claimant had pre-existing generalised anxiety disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the accident; current permanent impairment of 7%; pre-existing permanent impairment of 0% WPI; permanent impairment assessed at 7% as result of injury caused by the accident.

Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

1. The Review Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Nagesh dated

26 August 2024 and issues a new certificate determining that the following injury caused by the motor accident give rise to a permanent impairment of 7%: * post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. On 23 April 2022 Chiara Tamplin (the claimant) was the passenger in a vehicle driven by her father when another vehicle failed to stop, and T-boned the vehicle in which she was a passenger causing her to sustain injury (the accident).
2. Ms Tamplin has brought a claim for common law damages under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act).
3. Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance (the insurer) is the relevant insurer with liability to pay any damages to Ms Tamplin under the MAI Act.

1. Section 4.11 of the MAI Act provides that there is no entitlement to damages for non-economic loss unless the degree of permanent impairment of the injured person as a result of the injury caused by the accident is greater than 10%.
2. This dispute is in relation to whether the degree of permanent impairment sustained by

Ms Tamplin as a result of the injury caused by the accident is greater than 10%. This constitutes a medical assessment matter pursuant to Schedule 2, cl 2 of the MAI Act. 3. A medical assessment matter is determined in accordance with Division 7.5 of the MAI Act by a Medical Assessor.[1] 4. Ms Tamplin filed an application in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in respect of the permanent impairment dispute. 5. The dispute as to permanent impairment in respect of the claimant's psychological injury was referred to Medical Assessor Nagesh. He issued a certificate dated 26 August 2024.

1. The Review Panel issued a Direction to the parties on 21 May 2025 requiring each party to file an indexed, paginated bundle of documents.
2. On or about 16 June 2025 the solicitor for the insurer uploaded to the portal a bundle of documents paginated from page 1 to 117 (insurer's documents).
3. On or about 9 July 2025 the solicitor for the claimant uploaded to the portal a bundle of documents paginated from pages 1 to 167 (claimant's documents).
4. On 12 September 2025 in response to a direction from the Panel the insurer uploaded to the portal the clinical records of the Vickers Team Care paginated from pages 1 to 181 (Vickers documents).

1. Medical Assessor Nagesh issued a certificate dated 26 August 2024 in which he certified the following injury caused by the accident gave rise to a permanent impairment of 11%:
   • post-traumatic stress disorder.
2. The injuries referred for assessment were the following:
   • post-traumatic stress disorder, and
   • anxiety as a result of cosmetic issue with nose.
3. Medical Assessor Nagesh reported Ms Tamplin, then aged 20, was in a de facto relationship working casually 16 hours a week and studying nursing.
4. Prior to the accident Ms Tamplin stated she was working 40 hours a week as a swimming coach, in a medical centre and as a high school musical coach. She was in another relationship. She had plenty of friends with whom she went out clubbing and to bars. She was in her first year at Uni studying medical science. She played netball.
5. Medical Assessor Nagesh reported a pre-accident history of anxiety diagnosed whilst undertaking the HSC exams. She took Citalopram and saw a psychologist although her symptoms were in remission at the time of the accident.
6. He reported the accident occurred on 3 April 2022 when Ms Tamplin was a passenger in a car driven by her father which was about to turn right when it was T-boned by an oncoming vehicle which did not stop at the traffic lights. She reported the car spun and swerved, the airbags deployed. There was no loss of consciousness, and she was able to self-extricate. She reported her head was fuzzy.
7. Medical Assessor Nagesh reported Ms Tamplin developed emotional symptoms immediately after the accident. She became irritable, anxious to travel in a car and had nightmares and flashbacks of the accident. She worried something bad was going to happen and she experienced panic attacks at every intersection. Her mood became depressed and she could not continue her Uni studies. She was not able to sleep, her ability to concentrate decreased and her appetite fluctuated. She has sought treatment with a psychologist and has taken anti-depressant medication.
8. Medical Assessor Nagesh diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder noting the severity of the accident. He reported since the accident Ms Tamplin had developed nightmares and flashbacks, she had stopped driving and had become fearful of travelling in a car, her mood had become depressed, and she worries about another accident or something bad happening. She has insomnia, irritability, diminished ability to concentrate and hypervigilance.
9. Medical Assessor Nagesh assessed an 11% whole person impairment (WPI). He assessed class 1 for self-care and personal hygiene, class 3 for social and recreational activities, class 1 for travel, class 3 for social functioning, class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace and class 3 for adaptability.
10. He assessed class 3 for social and recreational activities on the basis Ms Tamplin has become socially withdrawn, does not participate in recreational activities, has stopped attending social events including family functions and sporting events, clubbing or pubbing.
11. Medical Assessor Nagesh assessed class 3 for social functioning noting Ms Tamplin was in a relationship prior to the accident which broke up due to her irritability and because her partner was not able to cope with her symptoms. He reported she had lost contact with the majority of her friends. He noted since the accident she had been in another relationship. Medical Assessor Nagesh states he assessed a moderate impairment since she had separated from her ex-partner.
12. Medical Assessor Nagesh assessed class 2 for concentration, persistence and pace.

Ms Tamplin reported her attention and concentration was poor, and she was struggling with her Uni work. He reported she described her memory as fine. He assessed a mild impairment because she was able to undertake a standard course at a slower pace and because she was able to concentrate for up to 30 minutes during the interview. 13. Medical Assessor Nagesh assessed a class 3 for adaption on the basis Ms Tamplin was not able to pursue her medical science degree and was now averaging about 16 hours a week as an AIN (assistant in nursing) when she worked 40 hours per week in total before the accident. 14. Medical Assessor Nagesh undertook an assessment of the pre-existing impairment assessing class 1 for all categories or a 0% WPI.

1. The insurer has sought a review of the medical assessment of Medical Assessor Nagesh.
2. The application was lodged on 2 September 2024 within 28 days of the date on which the certificate of Medical Assessor Nagesh was made available to the parties.[2]
3. On 8 October 2024 the delegate of the President being satisfied there was reasonable cause to suspect that the medical assessment was incorrect in a material respect referred the medical assessment to the Review Panel (the Panel).
4. Rules 127 to 130 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) are made pursuant to Part 5 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act). A review panel determines how it conducts and determines the proceedings and may determine the proceedings solely based on the written application.[3]
5. The review is by way of a new assessment of all matters with which the medical assessment is concerned.
6. On 10 September 2024 the Panel agreed an examination was necessary.

1. Section 7.21 of the MAI Act provides that the degree of permanent impairment of an injured person is to be assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines).
2. The Guidelines were issued pursuant to Division 10.2 of the MAI Act. Clause 6.213 of the Guidelines requires the impairment to be attributable to a psychiatric diagnosis recognised by the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, that is, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition Text Revision (DSM-5) or the current edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases & Related Health Problems (ICD). The assessment of mental and behavioural disorders must be undertaken in accordance with the psychiatric impairment rating scale (PIRS) as set out in the Guidelines.
3. Causation of injury is addressed under Part 6 of the Guidelines dealing with permanent impairment:

"6.6 Causation is defined in the Glossary at page 316 of the AMA4 Guides as follows:

'Causation means that a physical, chemical or biologic factor contributed to the occurrence of a medical condition. To decide that a factor alleged to have caused or contributed to the occurrence or worsening of a medical condition has, in fact, done so, it is necessary to verify both of the following:

1. The alleged factor could have caused or contributed to worsening of the impairment, which is a medical determination.
2. The alleged factor did cause or contribute to worsening of the impairment, which is a non-medical determination.'

This, therefore, involves a medical decision and a non-medical informed judgement.

6.7 There is no simple common test of causation that is applicable to all cases, but the accepted approach involves determining whether the injury (and the associated impairment) was caused or materially contributed to by the motor accident. The motor accident does not have to be a sole cause as long as it is a contributing cause, which is more than negligible. Considering the question 'Would this injury (or impairment) have occurred if not for the accident?' may be useful in some cases, although this is not a definitive test and may be inapplicable in circumstances where there are multiple contributing causes."

1. In the Application for personal injury benefits dated 20 May 2021 Ms Tamplin listed her injuries as "concussion (long concussion), brain fog, brain bruising, headaches, bulging discs, vomiting, tiredness and inability to concentrate".[4]

1. The Vicker's Team Care consultation records disclose the following pre-accident complaints:
   • 25 July 2018 - headache over the last three days with dizziness. Impressions of a migraine;[5]
   • 29 November 2018 - stressed out, anxious, perhaps a little depressed. Referred to psychologist Julia under a mental health care plan;
   • 13 February 2019 - intermittent headaches present for a year;
   • 27 February 2019 - headaches continue, normal MRI;
   • 12 April 2019 - anxious, stressed out, referral to psychologist;
   • 6 November 2019- stressed about school, over achiever. To see psychologist again next week;[6]
   • 22 January 2020 - Dr Vickers referred the claimant to psychologist Julia for severe anxiety and depression. He noted she was teary and flat and had been super anxious and depressed during the HSC;
   • 9 July 2020 - has migraine with no aura. Vitamin B12 deficiency and vitamin D deficiency;[7]
   • 19 May 2021 - prescribed Citalopram for anxiety and mild depression. Stressed out and anxious ad a bit depressed in recent months - doing HSC this year. Seeing psych counsellor at school;[8]
   • on 25 May 2021 Dr Vickers referred the claimant to Ms Monique Cohen psychotherapist for severe anxiety and depressions, worsened over recent months;[9]
   • 2 June 2021 - long discussion regarding anxiety and depression. Moods have been flat but suicidal ideation has not increased. Is having some input from school with a counsellor seeing her every day;[10]
   • 1 July 2021 - her anxiety continues with some panic attacks at night. Dr Vickers prescribed Diazepam;[11]
   • 3 August 2021 - migraines. Anxiety and depression have improved since being on medication and seeing a psychologist, [12] and
   • 22 February 2022 - depression and anxiety much better after medication and seeing psychologist.[13]
2. Ms Tamplin consulted Julia Conte, clinical psychologist of Southern Psychotherapy on

7 March 2019.[14] Ms Conte reported she had seen the claimant for over five sessions. She had a history of anxiety, perfectionistic personality traits and difficulty making decisions. She diagnosed generalised anxiety disorder. 3. In a report dated 1 April 2021 Ms Monique Cohen, psychologist reported the claimant had thoughts of self-harm and suicide.[15] Her self-harm had recently taken the form of engaging in risky situations. She reported she lived in the shadow of her mother's dreams and did not know herself. 4. On 28 May 2021 Ms Cohen reported Ms Tamplin engaged in self-harming behaviour.[16] She reported the claimant had been feeling very anxious and depressed since the end of the preceding year. She had daily suicidal thoughts and had been self-harming for some time by abusing alcohol and cutting her thighs and wrists with scissors. She reported Ms Tamplin had self-harmed by restricting her food intake since year 9. She diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. Ms Tamplin attended Sutherland Hospital two days post-accident on 26 April 2022 complaining of headaches.[17] The hospital reported the claimant presented two day post low-speed accident. She was a restrained passenger T-boned at (a) the claimant meets criterion A, for post-traumatic stress disorder. Ms Tamplin directly witnessed the incoming car strike her car. Her first thoughts whilst watching the oncoming vehicle at fault was, "I'm going to die!" She then directly experienced the traumatic event and whilst she was unaware that the car had spun in the opposite direction, she hit her head and sustained physical injury affecting her vision;

(b) the claimant meets criterion B, experiencing recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories of the accident. The claimant also experiences recurrent distressing dreams in which the trauma of the accident is the primary content. The claimant also reported dissociative reactions (e.g. flashbacks) in which she felt as if she was in the accident again and that the trauma was reoccurring;

(c) the claimant meets criterion C, where she avoids thinking about the trauma of the accident and avoids conversations about the accident as well as failing to complete her driving practical skills test since the accident;

(d) the claimant meets criterion D. She experiences negative alterations in her cognitions and mood associated with the traumatic memory worsening after the accident as evidenced by the following:

(i) inability to remember an important aspect of the traumatic event; she was able to remember seeing the car was approaching and striking her vehicle. She could not remember the vehicle spinning; however, she recalled her vehicle facing in the wrong direction when she became aware she had been involved in a serious accident, and

(ii) she had a persistent negative emotional state (e.g. fear, horror, anger, guilt or shame) evidenced by continuing and persistent impulsive angry verbal arguments which her mother which she was unable to control;

(e) the claimant meets criterion E. She had an increase in arousal and reactivity beginning after the traumatic event, as evidenced by:

(i) problems with concentration which required reasonable adjustments to be granted by the disability officer at the university whilst undertaking her Bachelor of Nursing degree, and

(ii) sleep disturbance, difficulty falling asleep, remaining asleep and experiencing restless sleep most nights;

(f) the claimant meets criterion F, where the duration of the disturbance since the accident has been more than one month;

(g) the claimant meets criterion G, where the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. This is evidenced by the claimant having verbal angry arguments with her mother, the loss of her relationship with her partner and the loss of her capacity to progress with her Bachelor of Medical Science Degree, and

(h) the claimant meets criterion H, where the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance, (e.g. medication, alcohol) or another medical condition. The claimant does not suffer from a substance use disorder. Whilst she has a pre-existing psychiatric condition it would not meet the necessary criteria for this disorder. The claimant does not have a medical condition which would produce symptoms like those referrable to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. Both Medical Assessors agree the claimant did not meet the full criteria for DSM-5-TR F 32.0 major depressive disorder at the time of the re-examination. Ms Tamplin does not have a major depressive disorder because she has successfully formed a new relationship, she has been able to share intimacy with her new partner, she has been able to successfully progress at a slower pace in her academic studies, she has been able to plan for her future career and she has an expectation of successful transitioning from her role as a university student and nursing trainee to a new graduate registered nurse working fulltime hours.
2. The Panel adopts the reasons of the Medical Assessors and finds that the claimant suffers from a post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. The claimant was stationary in the front passenger seat of the car driven by her father. The claimant saw the at fault driver drive towards the car she was in. She recalled thinking, "He is going to kill us!" She said this was the last thought she had before the accident.
2. The Panel finds the circumstances of the accident could have caused the claimant to develop a post-traumatic stress disorder.
3. Immediately after the accident Ms Tamplin attempted to continue to enjoy an outing with friends in the city. Whilst in the hotel she was startled by fireworks and became distressed requiring assistance from her friend overnight.
4. Ms Tamplin became increasingly verbally angry, irritable, and agitated. She was unable to maintain her relationship with her ex-partner. The relationship ceased. The claimant failed to progress in her Bachelor of Medical Science and her goal of becoming a medical practitioner ceased. The claimant was unable to work as an assistant in nursing as she was too irritable and this role ceased.
5. Ms Tamplin experienced repeated episodes of angry verbal arguments with her mother resulting in the claimant separating from her mother and spending about seven days at her new partner's home attempting to settle her negative cognitions and emotions.
6. The claimant reported a physical injury affecting her left inferior visual field. She said she had pain in the form of headache. She said her physical injury and pain had not impaired her capacity to study a lesser degree and work in a lesser role. She had not had surgical treatment for any of her physical injuries.
7. The Panel's Medical Assessors agree that the claimant's diagnosed psychological injury, is DSM-5-TR F 43.1 post-traumatic stress disorder. The claimant had been treated for this psychological injury with evidence based psychological treatment and evidence-based antidepressant medication. She was compliant with psychological treatment and Citalopram 20mg at night.
8. Having regard to the history outlined above and the conclusion of the Medical Assessors the Panel finds the accident did cause the claimant to develop a post-traumatic stress disorder.

1. The Panel finds that the claimant has sustained a permanent impairment as a result of the post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the accident.
2. The Panel adopts the findings of the Medical Assessors with respect to the assessment of permanent impairment in accordance with the PIRS.
3. The Panel notes that in accordance with cl 6.215 of the Guidelines the PIRS must not be used to measure impairment due to somatoform disorders or pain and in accordance with cl 6.214 any impairment due to a physical condition is not to be used for the assessment of permanent impairment using the PIRS scale.
4. The claimant reported that she did experience pain and that she still had a visual field deficit due to her visual injury. She said these conditions did not impair her capacity to self-care or maintain her personal hygiene. This impairment due to pain and physical conditions was not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of impairments due to pain and physical conditions

1. The claimant reported that she did experience pain and that she still had a visual field deficit due to her visual injury. She said these conditions did not impair her capacity to self-care or maintain her personal hygiene. This impairment due to pain and physical conditions was not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of assessable psychological injury

1. The claimant said that she would shower most days. She said that she was able to ensure the minimum necessary personal hygiene and self-care. She said she was less interested in her deportment. She was less interest in maintaining her hair and cleaning her teeth. She was not interested in cleaning her bedroom or assisting her parents with cleaning the house, bathrooms, or gardens. She was less able to manage her nutrition, and her weight had increased since the accident. She relied more on take-away foods and pre-prepared meals from the hospital cafeteria and nearby take-way shops. She said she was independent in her self-care and personal hygiene.

Assessment of impairments due to pain and physical conditions

1. The claimant said she was not impaired by her visual injury or pain due to her physical condition. Impairment due to pain and physical conditions was not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of assessable psychological injury

1. The claimant said she would socialise with her friendship circle less than before the accident. She said she was less interested in socialising in public with her new partner. She was able to socialise and share activities with her new partner. They would share television series, music, social media and attending museums together. She did not socialise outside of her family home. She was less interested in participating in family events and traditional celebrations within the family as she had prior to the accident.

Assessment of impairments due to pain and physical conditions

1. The claimant said that she did not have impairment due to pain and physical conditions in relation to her travel. Pain and physical conditions are not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of assessable psychological injury

1. The claimant said that she could leave her home alone and travel to the local shop, university, workplace, and hospital by public transport. She could travel alone to her medical appointments. The claimant said she had avoided learning how to drive since the accident, until the last few weeks before the re-examination. She said her new partner had been her supervisor whilst attempting to recommence learning to drive. She said she might had had about four, 30-minute driving sessions since the accident.

Assessment of impairments due to pain and physical conditions

1. The claimant said that her physical condition and pain did not impair her social functioning. Pain and physical conditions are not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of assessable psychological injury

1. The claimant said that she had separated from her ex-partner and formed a new intimate relationship with her current partner. She said was less interested in social activities outside of their homes.
2. The claimant said she would have angry verbal arguments with her mother. She said she would become frustrated and leave the family home, as she did not want the fighting to escalate into more physical arguments. She said she is not interested in sharing any communal time with her parents. She said she would spend many days at her new partner's home and would not return until her anger and frustration had settled.
3. The claimant said that after these recurrent periods of separation since the accident she remains isolated in her own room when she returned home.
4. The claimant had lost her social circle of friends that she had before the accident. She was less interested in finding new friendships and was reliant on her relationship with her new partner.

Assessment of impairments due to pain and physical conditions

1. Impairment due to pain and physical conditions was not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of assessable psychological injury

1. The claimant said her concentration, persistence and pace was less since the accident. She said she had applied through the university disability officer to have reasonable adjustments to her study program with extension of time for her assignments, attachments, and examinations. She said she had progressed slower than her peers who did not require these reasonable adjustments. She said she was expected to complete all her university requirements within about six weeks from this re-examination. She said she had sought extra time to compete her outstanding study requirements.

Assessment of impairments due to pain and physical conditions

1. The claimant did not report any impairment due to pain and physical conditions. Impairment due to pain and physical conditions were not included in the PIRS assessment of WPI.

Assessment of assessable psychological injury

1. The claimant said she had difficulty adapting to her role as an assistant in nursing. She stopped this work after a brief period of employment. The claimant said she was not enjoying working as a concierge and she hope to put this role behind her when she commenced her new graduate program for 2026.
2. The claimant explained that she had set her career goal to become a medical practitioner however she had not been able to complete her Bachelor of Medical Science since the accident. She had been able to complete a less rigorous education and training program successfully after she had received reasonable adjustments to enable her to progress at a suitable rate to fulfill her academic requirements.
3. The claimant could study fulltime in a less stressful course and work part-time in a less stressful role.

1. The claimant's permanent psychological impairment is now well stabilised and static. The onset of the claimant's psychological injury was in April 2022 after the accident. The date of this re-examination was in October 2025. This permanent psychological impairment is unlikely to change substantially and by more than 3%WPI in the next year with or without treatment.

Degree of permanent impairment - psychiatric impairment rating scale

The claimant had been assessed and treated by her general medical practitioner, psychiatrist, and psychologist.

The claimant said that she would shower most days. She said that she was able to ensure the minimum necessary personal hygiene and self-care. She said she was less interested in her deportment. She was less interested in maintaining her hair and cleaning her teeth. She was not interested in cleaning her bedroom or assisting her parents with cleaning the house, bathrooms, or gardens. She was less able to manage her nutrition, and her weight had increased since the accident. She relied more on take-away foods and pre-prepared meals from the hospital cafeteria and nearby take-way shops. She said she was independent in her self-care and personal hygiene.

The claimant said she would socialise with her friendship circle less than before the accident. She said she was less interested in socialising in public with her new partner. She was able to socialise and share activities with her new partner. They would share television series, music, social media and attend museums together. She did not socialise outside of her family home. She was less interested in participating in family events and traditional celebrations within the family as she had prior to the accident.

The claimant said she could leave her home alone and travel to the local shop, university, workplace, and hospital by public transport. She could travel alone to medical appointments. The claimant said she had avoided learning how to drive since the accident, until the last few weeks before the re-examination. She said her new partner had been her supervisor whilst attempting to learn to drive. She said she might have had about four, 30-minute driving sessions since the accident.

The claimant said that she had separated from her ex-partner and formed a new intimate relationship with her current partner. She was less interested in social activities outside of their homes.

The claimant said she would have angry verbal arguments with her mother. She said she would become frustrated and leave the family home, as she did not want the fighting to escalate into more physical arguments. She said she was not interested in sharing any communal time with her parents. She said she would spend many days at her new partner's home and would not return until her anger and frustration had settled.

The claimant said that after these recurrent periods of separation since the accident she would remain isolated in her own room when she returned home.

The claimant had lost her social circle of friends from before the accident. She was less interested in finding new friendships and was reliant on her relationship with her new partner.

The claimant said her concentration, persistence and pace was less since the accident. She said she had applied through the university disability officer to have reasonable adjustments to her study program with extension of time for her assignments, attachments, and examinations. She said she had progressed slower than her peers who did not require these reasonable adjustments. She said she was expected to complete all her university requirements within about six weeks. She said she had sought extra time to complete her outstanding study requirements.

The claimant said she had difficulty adapting to her role as an assistant in nursing. She stopped this work after a brief period of employment. The claimant said she did not enjoy working as a concierge and she hope to put this role behind her when she commenced her new graduate program for 2026.

The claimant explained that she had set her career goal to become a medical practitioner, however she had not been able to complete her Bachelor of Medical Science since the accident. She had been able to complete a less rigorous education and training program successfully after she had received reasonable adjustments to enable her to progress at a suitable rate to fulfill her academic requirements.

The claimant could study full-time in a less stressful course and work part-time in a less stressful role.

List of Classes in ascending order: 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3

The claimant had been assessed and treated by her medical team and was prescribed Citalopram 20mg daily.

Ms Tamplin said before the accident, she was independent in her self-care and personal hygiene. She lived in the same house as her parents. She showered daily and maintained her nutrition. She was able to cook, clean and assist with the chores around the family home. She cleaned her own room and attended to her own laundry. She was able to purchase her own groceries from the local supermarket if required. She was not required to attend to household maintenance or the garden as her parents performed these duties.

Ms Tamplin said she was able to socialise without impairment before the accident. She socialised with her partner outside the family home. She made friends at school, and she attended friends' parties and events, music venues, and clubs. She enjoyed dancing and socialising with her friendship circle. She celebrated cultural events with her family, such as birthdays and Christmas.

Ms Tamplin said she was learning to drive before the accident. She had completed all her practice hours and the theory test. She had not completed her practical driving test.

The claimant said she could take the bus and train to travel to her education venues without difficulty. She could take public transport to her elder sister's medical practice where she worked part time without difficulty.

Ms Tamplin said she was in an intimate relationship with another student at the school she attended. She reported she had been socialising with her partner in public for about one year and she visited her partner's parental home.

The claimant said she was close to her father, and she spoke to him about her personal life and choices. She said she had the usual teenage disagreements with her mother. She said she was closer to her father than to her mother.

Ms Tamplin said she was closest to Rosie, her sister and that she spoke with her about her personal life and family issues. She said she had a good relationship with her other sisters, and she worked part-time for her sister who owned a private medical service.

Ms Tamplin was able to concentrate and persist with complex tasks. She had scored a high grade for her HSC certificate. She had commenced her Bachelor of Medical Science. She was able to concentrate on reading and perform all the necessary requirements of her education without impairment.

Ms Tamplin was able to study fulltime and work part time prior to the accident. She was able to schedule, and work without performance difficulties prior to the accident.

List of Classes in ascending order: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2

1. The claimant was assessed as having 0% WPI for her pre-existing generalised anxiety disorder.

1. The claimant had no subsequent conditions since the accident in 2022.

1. The claimant was assessed as having 0% WPI for the effects of treatment as both Medical Assessors agree that the claimant's condition will not change with or without medical treatment. The claimant remained symptomatic even though she had received evidence-based treatment for her psychological injury caused by the accident.

1. The Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Nagesh dated 26 August 2024 and issues a new certificate determining that the following injury caused by the motor accident give rise to a permanent impairment of 7%:
   • post-traumatic stress disorder.