austlii:nsw/NSWPICMP/2025/633
General information, not legal advice.
NSWPICMP
2025-08-22
Original judgment source is linked above.
Nicolaou v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 633
MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; medical review of certificate of Medical Assessor (MA); claimant suffered injury in an accident; the dispute related to the assessment of whole person impairment (WPI) of ear, nose, throat and related structures (hearing impairment and equilibrium vestibular impairment); MA found no hearing loss caused by the accident; accident did cause tinnitus but not assessable in absence of hearing loss caused by accident; no objective findings of vestibular impairment; MA assessed 0% WPI; Held - hearing loss not caused by accident; tinnitus caused by accident; no evidence of vestibular dysfunction; claimant suffers from vestibular migraine; certificate of MA affirmed.
Whether the degree of permanent impairment of the injured person as a result of the injury caused by the motor accident is greater than 10%
Certificate issued under s 7.23(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
"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:
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."
Certificate of Review Panel in respect of certificate of Medical Assessor Chan
"O/A patient self-extricated, in care of police and fire rescue, alert, appeared well-perfused, responsive to questions in full sentences. ...
Report low speed collision, minimal deformation to the vehicle, nil airbag deployment.
Patient CO central neck pain/tenderness and generalised pain to right leg.
O/E... Nil lap-belt injury/abrasion noted. Nil neurological (sensory or motor) deficits, nil abrasion/injuries detected elsewhere on the body."[14]
Midline cervical tenderness at C3-4 ... ROM to all joints bilat, no tenderness
4 July 2019 in respect of ongoing neck and shoulder pain. On examination he noted there was no nystagmus or other cerebellar signs. Hallpike's manoeuvre was negative. He considered the claimant's symptoms were a combination of left supraspinatus shoulder tear with the possibility of a C5/C6 left foraminal narrowing that may have been exacerbated by the accident.[30] 3. In an audiology report dated 8 May 2019 Michael Gordon stated:
"The pure tone audiogram shows a bilateral and asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. The right ear has a mild sloping to moderately severe hearing loss. The left ear has a mild-moderate sloping to severe hearing loss.
Speech audiometry scores are consistent with the pure tone thresholds.
Type A tympanograms were recorded from both ears, indicating normal middle ear function."[31]
"whiplash + ringing in the ears + headache + sensation of moving + vertigo + deafness left ear - left shoulder pain (bursitis + supraspinatus tear) plus pain left web space between thumb and index finger ? c6 nerve impingement (c-spine) + bilateral sensorineural hearing loss."
"On examination today the external auditory canals and tympanic membranes appears unremarkable. On gross balance testing I note that he does drift off a little bit to the right-hand side on Fukuda Unterberger testing. He has what appears to be a rotator cuff injury to his left shoulder and therefore was unable to properly lift his left arm. The head thrust test did not demonstrate any saccades and he did not have any nystagmus on eye movement."[32]
16 August 2019.[33] All vestibular function tests were normal. The Video Head Impulse Report has the following handwritten notation on the bottom of the report:
"Technical issues due to blinking and eye movement during testing. Mr Nicolaou felt dizzy throughout the test."
"Pure tone audiometry revealed: Moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear and a moderate to profound sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. Hearing asymmetry is noted, thresholds worse in the left ear."[37]
"Mr Nicolaou tells me that his hearing has deteriorated with ear pain in both ears since a car accident in 2018. Constant high-pitched tinnitus with a blocked ear sensation in both ears is also mentioned today. Mr Nicolaou also reports a recurrent disequilibrium sensation since the accident. Mr Nicolaou says he worked in the building industry for a short period [of] time before."
Dr Watson prescribed Propranolol 20 mg daily. [40] On 10 September 2021 Dr Watson reported that the Deralin 20 mg had made a significant difference to the claimant's dizziness and headache and suggested increasing it to 20 mg twice daily. He noted the Endep was being slowly withdrawn.[41] On 26 November 2021 Dr Watson recommended increasing the Propranolol to 40 mg daily. 3. Dr Patricia Jungfer, psychiatrist provided a report dated 24 March 2021.[42] She diagnosed major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the accident. She reported the claimant experienced flashbacks, is occasionally anxious in the community and avoids driving. 4. In a report dated 1 June 2022 Mina Candalepas, psychologist reported the claimant presented with severe levels of depression, with sadness, a flatness of affect, some social withdrawal, sleep disruption, fatigues, cognitions of worthlessness, agitation and anger in relation to his inability to return to his pre-incident functioning. She stated a key presenting concern throughout the entirety of the treatment process has been difficulties with managing episodes of dizziness. 5. In a report dated 14 June 2023 Dr Aligiannis, GP reported the Deralin (Propranolol) was initially prescribed by Dr Watson as per his letter dated 5 March 2021 to manage the headaches and dizziness associated with vestibular migraine secondary to the whiplash injury sustained in the accident.[43] She reported the symptoms of dizziness had been reported since the accident. 6. On 12 December 2023 Dr Watson reported pain and stiffness in the neck. He also noted he has dizziness and loss of balance variably triggered by looking up or down, trains, noisy shopping centres and lifts. Dr Watson affirmed his diagnosis of vestibular migraine triggered by injury. He thought there might also be a cervicogenic component to the dizziness. He prescribed Allegron 25 mg nocte. 7. On 19 July 2024 Dr Watson reported the claimant was taking Allegron 25mg nocte. He reported he felt a little less dizzy but feels unsteady and dizzy fairly often. He reported he continued to experience neck and head pain. Dr Watson concluded the claimant had severe migraine, possibly with a cervicogenic component. On 24 January 2025 Dr Watson reported Mr Nicolaou had a fall on 12 October 2024 which was related to spinning dizziness.
Dr Watson reported he experiences spinning dizziness on a regular basis which can be triggered by loud noises and visual motion. 8. On 19 July 2024 Dr Watson reported the claimant was taking Allegron 25 mg nocte.[44] The claimant was perhaps a little less dizzy but reported he felt unsteady and dizzy fairly often. He also experienced neck and head pain. Dr Watson reported he looked flat and depressed. Hallpike test was negative. His opinion as to diagnosis was unchanged. 9. The claimant saw Dr John Trantalis, orthopaedic surgeon on 13 June 2024 and on
2 August 2024 in respect of right shoulder pain. He thought the pain may have been from the biceps tendon and possibly a partial re-tear of the repaired rotator cuff. 10. On 29 November 2024 Ms Candelapas reported in the main the claimant's psychological condition had not improved and was driven by his difficulties in managing pain and dizziness.[45]
"No intracranial haemorrhage, no skull fracture, no cervical spinal fracture, subluxation or dislocation."
"The appearance of the intracranial contents is within normal limits for the patient's age."[46]
"No evidence of a carotid or vertebral artery dissection or occlusion. No acute cervical spine injury. Moderate to severe left C5/6 neural exit foraminal stenosis which may impinge on the exiting left C6 nerve root. This can be assessed with MRI. Multiple subcentimetre thyroid nodules."[47]
"No evidence of a carotid or vertebral artery dissection or occlusion.
Moderate to severe left C5/6 neural exit foraminal stenosis which may impinge on the exiting left C6 nerve root. ...
Multiple subcentimetra thyroid nodules."[48]
"Mild discovertebral spondylotic changes. C5/6 moderate to severe left foraminal stenosis due to uncovertebral osteophytes resulting in potential impingement of left C6 nerve root. C6/7 tiny left central disc protrusion associated with potential impingement of root entry zone of the left C7 nerve root. No myelopathy is seen."[49]
The appearance of the intracranial contents is within normal limits for the patient's age."[50]
"No acute intracranial abnormality demonstrated."[51]
Dr Kenneth Howison, ear, nose and throat surgeon (ENT)
Prof Paul Fagan, ENT, hearing loss and tinnitus specialist
7 October 2020.[54] 2. Dr Machart diagnosed a cervical soft tissue strain at the time of the accident. In relation to the left shoulder, he concluded whilst frozen shoulder can develop for no reason in the presence of a potential injury from the accident, the impact of the accident cannot be entirely discounted. He stated it was reasonable to conclude that the left shoulder adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) was at least in part caused by the accident.
Dr Charles New, orthopaedic and spinal surgeon
9 February 2019 referring to the left clavicle. 3. Dr Powell concluded the claimant's ongoing disabilities relate to bilateral shoulder stiffness and pain which arises from his rotator cuff disease and post-operative state, none of which relate to the accident. 4. In relation to the cervical spine Dr Powell considered any soft tissue strain had resolved, and no further management was required, although he found the prognosis was guarded with respect to the multilevel degenerate disease which had been symptomatic prior to the accident. He found there was no accident-related WPI in the neck or either shoulder.
27 September 2022.[59] There is some doubt about the efficacy of the assessment where an interpreter was not available for the entire assessment. 2. Dr Mellick concluded that the details of the accident did not indicate that it involved a high degree of trauma and the information from the ambulance officers and the hospital following the accident together with his findings did not establish the possibility of a significant structural lesion to the spine or any other deeply sited neurological consequence. 3. He diagnosed a chronic pain syndrome and associated impairment of function due to severe depression dating from the accident. 4. He stated that the vertigo/dizzy spells were not likely to be causally related to the injury.
"This medication may be contributing to or causing orthostatic hypotension and dizziness which have been reported, in which case should be considered at a lower dose."
Dr Millar of 2 December 2019 of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, worse on the left than the right, possibly a result of the accident. 4. The claimant notes that Medical Assessor Williams also referenced the report of Dr Howison of 10 January 2020 who noted the rear-ender with no airbags deployed, immediate ringing in the ears, left worse than right, the claimant's assertion that he had lost hearing and his review by Dr Millar.
20 December 2018 that he complained of tinnitus on the left. He had previously seen his GP on 1 December 2018 after the accident, but he said he concentrated on the pain from his neck injuries and did not complain about other issues. He said he was not aware of any hearing loss at this time, even when he complained about the tinnitus on 20 December. 5. The history is slightly confusing, with the details not clear, but he first became aware of his hearing loss about six months later (May 19), when he was told he had a hearing loss after a hearing test. When questioned about this, he said, even before the hearing test, he had suspected a loss since at times he could not hear his wife. He stressed that before the accident he had no hearing problems or tinnitus. He said the question of hearing loss occurred when the tinnitus became an issue. 6. The history given to Dr Williams was different in that he said the claimant became aware of his hearing loss three days after the accident. Further, when he saw Dr Miller in August 2019, he said he had no communication difficulties as his right hearing was okay. He could not explain these inconsistencies, as his recollection of the immediate events is blurred. 7. The tinnitus is quite severe. It interferes with all aspects of his life. He cannot concentrate due to both tinnitus and other issues, and similarly, his sleep is affected. He has difficulty hearing his wife. 8. He also specifically mentioned that the television should be on low volume. He watches television but cannot concentrate for more than 10 minutes at a time. However, in response to a question about following the programme even with the low volume, he said he could. He was not clear whether he was hearing the conversation, despite the low volume of the television, although the impression given was that he did. 9. He has not had any treatment for his hearing loss or tinnitus.
Review of documentation undertaken by Medical Assessor Raj
"Cranial Nerves- Eye movements normal, nil diplopia, visual fields normal, PEARL masseter tone and facial sensation normal, facial mm normal, hearing unchanged, uvula midline and nil hoarseness, accessory mm normal, tongue midline, speech normal."
Mr Nicolaou underwent a hearing test in May 2019 that bilateral sensorineural loss was revealed. If this is accurate, he must have developed the bilateral loss gradually over several years, allowing him to adapt to it and remain unaware. The only other plausible explanation is that the loss is congenital, meaning he managed it effectively and never realised he had hearing loss. The force required to produce such severe hearing loss after head injury is very severe and often associated with cerebral symptoms. 4. Mr Nicolaou said he suspected he had a hearing loss before the accident because he could not hear his wife sometimes. However, he reported to Dr Millar in August 2019 that he had no communication difficulty because his right hearing was fine. 5. When he was examined by Medical Assessor Raj the claimant did not show any clinical evidence of hearing loss. He reported he could watch television and follow programmes without increasing the volume on the television. He was softly spoken and was able to hear normal conversational noise. He could hear the low, audible noise of a tuning fork. He could hear Medical Assessor Raj when he lowered his voice. 6. The claimant's audiograms have progressively deteriorated since the first audiogram in 2019. If the audiograms are correct, then his hearing loss is progressive. This is not consistent with injury sustained due to the accident, which is a one-time incident and would not result in progressive hearing loss. 7. His audiogram at the time of the examination by Medical Assessor Raj showed severe losses in both ears, worse than all the previous audiograms, and inconsistent with his clinical hearing. 8. Medical Assessor Raj reported the claimant said he was getting confused due to dizziness and his mental issues during the hearing test, even though it was a simple task of pressing a button when hearing a sound. It does appear that his mental status is affecting his capacity. This is more likely in a functional hearing loss. 9. Whilst Dr Howison diagnosed an additional loss on the left (conductive deafness) as a result of the accident, he has not explained the mechanism that could have caused the conductive deafness. The history does not suggest that there was any middle ear pathology, such as drum perforation or ossicular damage, following the accident and in any event the force of the whiplash would be unlikely to cause ossicular dislocation. Furthermore, in cases of ossicular dislocation, all frequencies would be affected, not just the mid-frequencies. 10. Dr Howison also diagnosed the high-frequency losses of more than 70db at 3000-4000hz as due to noise exposure of just seven years. He does not explain how such severe losses can occur in these frequencies after seven years. In noise exposure of this duration, it is more likely the loss will not, broadly speaking, exceed 25dB at 3000Hz and 30dB at 4000Hz. 11. The Panel considered it was unlikely the high tone loss is due to noise injury; it is more likely due to other non-diagnosed pathology unrelated to the accident. 12. Dr Fagan found that the claimant's hearing was normal clinically, but the audiogram was not consistent with the clinical hearing. When he examined the claimant Medical Assessor Raj also considered the claimant's clinical hearing was normal and not aligned with the audiogram. 13. Dr Fagan mentioned that the claimant's hearing loss had been progressive. Progression of hearing loss does not typically follow trauma, as trauma usually results in a one-time loss. The audiograms since 2019 do show progression, particularly in the mid-frequencies, assuming those audiograms accurately reflect his true thresholds. This progression further indicates the presence of other pathology unrelated to the accident, which in all probability pre-existed the incident and showed up as bilateral sensory-neural loss in May 2019. 14. It is the clinical experience of Medical Assessor Raj that in some instances, chronic loss or congenital loss is often diagnosed after an incidental audiogram, and the loss of hearing comes as a surprise to the patient. 15. The Panel considers the report of Dr Millar to be non-contributory, except to indicate the claimant had hearing loss, which may be related to the accident, without providing an adequate explanation or excluding other possible causes. 16. Medical Assessor Williams indicated the claimant was able to hear the very soft tuning fork and that this was inconsistent with the audiogram. This was consistent with the findings of Medical Assessor Raj. 17. Medical Assessor Williams stated the claimant's audiogram was inconsistent and the thresholds changed with retesting; he doubted the accuracy of the audiogram. This aligns with functional hearing loss, where hearing levels (his responses to tones) fluctuate depending on mental state. This was observed when assessed by Medical Assessor Raj, and notably when questioned about this inconsistency the claimant said that his dizziness and mental condition made it difficult to concentrate on the hearing test. 18. The cochlea is located in the strongest bone in the body - the temporal bone. To sustain a severe sensorineural loss, such as that shown in the audiogram, the cochlea would have to be subjected to severe force from a head injury, often associated with loss of consciousness, temporal bone fracture, and middle ear bleeding. If the eardrum perforates, there would be signs of perforation and bleeding. None of these occurred. 19. The claimant did not sustain a head injury. The severe bilateral loss does not align with the force involved in the accident. The slight additional loss on the left is also inconsistent with this injury. Furthermore, the accident could not have caused conductive deafness, as there was no evidence of middle ear injury. The Panel does not accept the opinion of Dr Howison that the claimant has sustained additional conductive deafness caused by the accident. 20. The clinical presentation is unlike that of a person with hearing loss, especially the claimant's ability to hear normal conversational speech, the soft, almost inaudible tone of the tuning fork, being soft spoken, the variability of the audiograms, including the progression, and the inconsistency observed between the audiograms and the claimant's clinical hearing. However, on the balance of probabilities the Panel finds the claimant had a mild pre-existing hearing loss. He was not aware of the hearing loss until he developed tinnitus associated with the neck injury following the accident and he was referred for a hearing test. At that time a hearing loss was identified. 21. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel finds the rear end collision at low speed with no impact to the head or neck was unlikely to cause or contribute to the worsening of the claimant's hearing loss. 22. The Panel was unable to diagnose the presence of a hearing loss caused or materially contributed to by the accident. Indeed, the Panel is not satisfied that the accident was a more than negligible cause of the claimant's hearing loss.
[30] Claimant's documents p 137, 150, 567.
Nicolaou
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPICMP 633;