Noun v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2025] NSWPICMP 268 (17 April 2025)

1. The parties have each presented their respective bundles of documents upon which they rely. The Panel have read all the documentation. If a particular document is not referred to by the Panel, this does not mean that the Panel or a Panel Member has not read it, in much the same manner as parties not referring to or not specifically relying on a document in their own bundle and submissions.
2. The fact that evidence is not referred to in these reasons does not mean it has been overlooked and nor is it required that each piece of evidence be mentioned - see WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2003) 75 ALO 630 at [46].The Panel is not required to "analyse every piece of information from every opinion contained in a document with which he [it] was provided" - see Farr v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1435 at [46]. The Panel has come to its own conclusion and has taken its own history.

1. The claimant submits that his injuries are non-threshold injuries.
2. The claimant says that the Medical Assessor has erred in his interpretation and application of the relevant principles, in particular, the principles set out in the authority of David v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2021] NSWPICMP 227.
3. The claimant says that David's case demonstrates that the Medical Assessor has wholly failed to take into account and find favourably in relation to causation for the purpose of this dispute in accordance with the principles mandated by the Commission. This provides that the claimant's pathology and recorded complaints of radiculopathy made at any time after the accident and not exclusively at the time of the subject assessment, must result in a 'non-threshold' injury finding, provided that such complaints and pathology satisfy the provisions of s 1.62 of the Act.
4. The claimant submits that in the subject assessment, the Medical Assessor concluded that there was no evidence of radiculopathy. However, the claimant says that the Medical Assessor failed to apply principles enunciated in David's case, that is, the existence of radiculopathy can be established at any time and not only during an examination by a Medical Assessor.
5. The claimant submits that upon review of the medical evidence and records, the Panel can be satisfied that the claimant demonstrated two objective signs of radiculopathy at any time following the motor accident.
6. Firstly, in the clinical file of Greystanes Physiotherapy and Sports Injury Clinic as at