1. Under sub-sections 7.36 (3) and 7.36 (4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), I

specify the amount of damages for this claim as $1,390,000.

1. The amount of the claimant's costs, taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, assessed in accordance with the Act is $99,090.20 inclusive of GST.
2. The insurer is to have credit for $393,342.

1. Vrajeshbhai Patel (the claimant) is a 41-year-old man who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 7 June 2021. He was the driver of a Toyota Corolla, in the course of his work, with a disabled client as a front seat passenger when the insured vehicle, a b-double truck, struck the rear corner of the vehicle which the claimant was driving causing it to spin and be

hit on the driver side of the vehicle whilst the claimant's vehicle was being shunted forward. The insurer has admitted breach of duty of care on the part of its insured driver with no allegation of contributory negligence.

1. The parties have agreed that the claimant's earnings at the time of the accident totalled

$1,215 per week net. It was also noted that there is a repayment to be made, in respect to both payments paid by the CTP insurer together with a repayment to the workers compensation insurer in an amount totalling $393,342. It has been determined that the claimant's injuries give rise to a permanent impairment which is greater than 10% and consequently, the claimant is entitled to an assessment of damages for non-economic loss.

1. The insurer submitted that there are significant reliability and credit issues which ought to be considered when assessing the claim for non-economic loss and economic loss claimed in this matter. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the credibility and reliability of the claimant together with the relevant medical material as these matters significantly colour the assessments to be made for both non-economic loss and economic loss consequent on the impairment sustained by the claimant in the subject motor vehicle accident.

1. The insurer submitted that the claimant would not be accepted as a credible or reliable historian. That is that he is overstating and exaggerating his degree of disability, has not been precise in outlining his post accident studies and generally over states his pre-injury working hours and likely earnings but for the motor vehicle accident.
2. The claimant's statement dated 14 August 2025 was contradicted when he was questioned at the assessment conference. I note that the evidence given by the claimant was somewhat evasive and argumentative and he did not present as a credible historian. Indeed the answers to the questions he gave at the assessment conference were, in part, contradictory to the statement provided with the material in this matter.
3. At the time of the accident the claimant was employed as an assistant in nursing and working as a disability support worker. He stated that he was working 45-50 hours per week including overtime. There was no evidence to support the contention that the claimant was working these hours at the time of the accident. The material, being pre-accident payslips, support the insurer's contention that the claimant worked about 38 hours per week.
4. The claimant stated:

"I was unable to complete the professional experience placement in nursing due to the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident."

1. At the assessment conference, the claimant agreed that, following the accident, he continued his studies completing the subject called 'Nurses Practice 2', being both a practical and theory course which required 160 hours of practical work as well as a theoretical component. The claimant completed and passed this subject, including sitting an exam in 2022. The claimant went to India in August 2022 and returned in January 2023. At the assessment conference, the claimant agreed that the reason given to the University for the travel was to visit his father who was unwell. He did not inform the University that it was to allow him to obtain medical treatment although this is what he did. The claimant underwent surgery to his cervical spine in India on 2 September 2022.
2. The claimant has been in receipt of Worker's Compensation payments since the accident and these payments continue.
3. He states that he has constant pain in his neck and back, his symptoms are aggravated by standing or sitting for any length of time, he suffers disturbed sleep, he has permanent numbness in his left leg, he is unable to work in any job that would require any manual activity and does not believe he is fit to work in an office. He cannot sit for long periods of time as he needs to get up and move around due to the pain. Notwithstanding this he agreed that following the accident he cared for his infant son, who was about one and a half years old at the time of the accident, as his wife returned to work in 2021 and the claimant was not working but in receipt of workers compensation payments. The claimant's statement does not mention him having the capacity for performing home duties nor caring for small children. At the assessment conference the claimant agreed that this is what he had been doing.
4. Noting these matters I do not find the claimant to have been accurate in either his post-accident studies, his pre-accident hours of work or earnings nor his residual capacity for work following the accident.

1. The claimant stated that he sustained injuries to a cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine as well as pain in both shoulders, tinnitus, aggravation of his diabetes and a psychological injury including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. The primary matter of contention between the parties was whether the need for the lumbar spinal surgery, which the claimant underwent on 3 September 2022 in India was caused by the accident. The insurer submitted that any alleged incapacity to work as a result of ongoing issues at the lumbar spine should not accepted as the surgical intervention and ongoing pain in the lumbar back was not entirely caused by the subject accident.
2. The claimant was examined by Medical Assessor Minogue who, in a certificate dated

25 March 2024 determined that the claimant sustained a degree of whole person impairment of 12% consequent on the lumbar spine being L4/5 - disc injury with verifiable radiculopathy giving rise to a 10% WPI with a further 2% consequent on the scarring following his surgery. The insurer sought a review of this determination and, in a certificate dated 28 April 2025 Medical Review Panel confirmed the medical determination that the motor accident caused or contributed to the lumbar spine injury.

1. The claimant's primary submission is that he possesses no realistic residual capacity for work as a consequence of his post-accident disabilities. The insurers admitted that the claimant is not disabled for employment and, more specifically, that the evidence does not support a need for the surgical intervention which the claimant underwent in September 2022. The report of Dr Gambhir dated 20 July 2021 says that the claimant:

"Likely sustained soft tissue injury without any significant bone, disc or nerve injury to his cervical or lumbar spine"

1. The report of Dr Bentivoglio dated 8 September 2025 states:

"I do believe the injuries that Mr. Patel sustained as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident are the main and substantial contributing factor door to the exacerbation of these minor degenerative changes in his cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions."

1. Most tellingly the certificate of determination of the medical Review Panel dated

28 April 2025 accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that the motor accident could have caused or contributed to the lumbar spine injury.

1. In my view, and it is supported by the medical material, the claimant did sustain his lumbar spinal injury in the motor vehicle accident, albeit an aggravation of underlying degenerative changes, and this in turn led to the claimant to undergo the surgical procedure in India. I

accept the claimant's back condition still troubles him today and is likely to trouble him into the future.

1. The claimant submitted that he also suffers from a psychiatric injury which has had an adverse effect on activities of daily living and work capacity. The statement the claimant provided with the material, dated 14 August 2025, does not support this contention other than his statement that he continues:

"To have ongoing anxiety particularly when encountering large trucks when I am driving."

1. At the assessment conference, the claimant confirmed that he had treatment from a psychologist but that it was surrounding the false allegations made against him by his former wife and that this:

1. The material included a medico-legal report from Dr Malik dated 7 February 2022. This report diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. He goes on to say:

"on the balance of probabilities I believe Mr Patel's prognosis in terms of improvement in the psychological condition .... is fair."

1. The claimant was under the care of a psychologist, Bill Singh, who was managing him as part of the workcover rehabilitation plan. The material outlines treatment in 2021 with very few references post this time identifying any sequelae consequent on a psychological injury arising from the motor accident.
2. I do not consider that the medical material, claimant's written statement nor is evident at the assessment conference supports any contention that the claimant continues to be significantly disabled by any psychiatric injury caused by the motor vehicle accident.
3. The material outlines other, less significant, injuries and sequelae caused by the accident. The report of Medical Assessor David Gorman dated 11 May 2024 found that as a result of psychological stress and post accident inactivity he suffered an aggravation of diabetes mellitus. This was found to be a relatively minor aggravation of a pre-accident condition comprising only 2% of an 8% whole person impairment (WPI) for the condition.
4. The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury to his cervical spine which, noting the lack of contemporary material in respect to any ongoing problems associated with this, does not seem to trouble him significantly today. The report of Dr Scovell dated 5 August 2025 notes radiological imaging of 7 February 2023 and diagnoses:

"Whiplash associated disorder without clear radiculopathy and development of sequelae and development of chronic pain scenario."

1. At the assessment conference, the claimant demonstrated, in so far as he was continuing to undertake his practical studies in early 2022, that he was not greatly troubled by his cervical spinal injury. It ought be noted that this was prior to his undergoing his lumbar spinal surgery in September 2022.
2. I do accept that the claimant has ongoing symptoms consequent on his lumbar spinal surgery which causes a significant restriction in his activities of daily living and would greatly impair his capacity to work as a registered nurse noting the requirements in that occupation for prolonged walking and standing, lifting patients and equipment, and remaining focused on the onerous work requirements such a profession demands.

1. The claimant submitted that an appropriate allowance for non-economic loss, noting the significant restriction in his capacity to undertake day to day activities, ongoing pain and suffering and his reduced capacity to engage in pre-accident social, sporting, domestic and recreational activities would be a figure in the order of $400,000.
2. The insurers submitted that an appropriate figure to allow for non-economic loss is $200,000.
3. In my view, noting the presentation of the claimant at the assessment conference, the ongoing restrictions associated with his lumbar spinal injury, and other minor physical impairments sustained in the motor vehicle accident, and taking into consideration his relative youth, an appropriate allowance for non-economic loss is $250,000.

1. The claimant submitted that the CTP insurer's payments of $356,043.97 in respect to weekly compensation operates as an admission (by conduct) that the workers compensation was properly paid and therefore liable to be repaid by the CTP insurer, pursuant to s 151Z(1)(f) of the Workers Compensation Act 2017 (WCA). That is, that this amount must be allowed in full as part of the claim for past economic loss.
2. The insurer submits that the claimant's past economic loss, to be assessed in this matter, is entirely divorced from what he has been paid by way of weekly compensation under the WCA.
3. In my view, the calculation for past economic loss must, by necessity, take into an account my assessment of the claimant, the medical material and to what extent the claimant has a residual earning capacity, whether he has exercised this capacity or not. If this gives rise to a

figure of less than that which the insurer is to deduct from this assessment for payments they have made or seek credit for, then this is a manifestation of the assessment of loss of the claimant when considering all relevant material and findings in relation to his past economic loss. The claimant has had the benefit of these payments in any event.

1. At the assessment conference it was agreed that the claimant had average weekly pre-injury earnings of $1,225 after tax.
2. The parties agreed that the income tax paid on the claimant's weekly workers compensation payments and payments made by the insurer is $107,000. In my view, it is not possible to calculate with any precision the past economic loss suffered by the claimant. Whilst he has been in receipt of weekly compensation payments and has not returned to any paid employment since the accident, he does have a capacity to earn an income albeit in a different industry to that in which he was working at the time of the accident.
3. The claimant was questioned at the assessment conference as to what has occupied his time since the accident, and more particularly since returning from India in February 2023, and he noted that he had been caring for his infant son (now aged six) whilst his wife returned to work.
4. The claimant is now divorced from his former wife. He has not sought to return to any type of employment although he agrees he has been certified fit for suitable duties three hours per day three days per week but states simply, "I'm unsure what work I could undertake due to injuries and ongoing pain".
5. At the assessment conference no explanation was given as to why he has not sought to return to work. He simply stated that he has not applied for any jobs.
6. Following the accident the claimant did not return to work and, noting in particular his lumbar spinal injury, I accept that he could not return to work at this time although he was continuing to study and in receipt of compensation payments. I consider that until August 2022, when he left for India, he was incapable of undertaking any work noting also that he was receiving rehabilitation assistance from the workers compensation insurer.
7. Thereafter the claimant has had a capacity to work which he has not exercised. In my view, during this period the calculation in respect to his past economic loss would be reflective of about a 25% residual earning capacity. These are appropriate calculations to base the provision of a buffer in respect to past economic loss, that is, in the 60 weeks post-accident provision of a figure in the order of $73,000. Thereafter a rough calculation reflective of about 75% of his pre-accident earnings to which must be added the agreed to Fox v Wood component and compensation for loss of employer superannuation payments.
8. I assess past economic loss, including loss of employer superannuation contributions and

1. The claimant submitted that future economic loss ought be precisely calculated on the basis of a loss of earnings calculated on a figure of $1,972 net per week up to age 67 with a reduction of 15% for vicissitudes. This is on the basis that the claimant possesses no realistic residual earning capacity.
2. The insurer submits the future economic loss ought be allowed, by way of a buffer, in the amount of $150,000. This is noting the insurer's submission that the claimant's earning capacity is either unchanged or only very slightly diminished consequent on any ongoing accident related restrictions on his employability.
3. The claimant had also submitted that the calculation of future economic loss ought take into consideration his loss of opportunity to work within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Whilst he stated that he:

"wanted to establish my own business becoming an NDIS provider and undertaking contract work with home care and other like services",

there was no other material provided to support this contention. At the assessment conference the claimant was asked specifically if this was only something he was thinking about to which he replied yes. When asked if he had any plans to start the business, he confirmed that he had not.

1. It is the claimant that bears the onus of making out what his most likely future circumstances would have been a but for his post-accident disabilities. I am not satisfied that the claimant has made out that he would have, on the balance of probabilities, sought to create and operate such a business.
2. There was nothing in the material to outline what licensing requirements would need to be met, what arrangements would need to be made to operate such an enterprise. There was no evidence adduced in respect to what contractual or employee arrangements would need to be put in place nor what risks would be associated with seeking to work in such a business, noting there were no plans for obtaining clients, or even how the NDIS requirements to be allocated such work would be met.
3. I am not satisfied that the claimant has made out this component of his claim for future economic loss.
4. Any calculation for future economic loss is inherently uncertain. Whilst I accept that the salary of a registered nurse is significantly higher than that which he was in receipt of at the time of the accident and the material does support the contention of salary increases commensurate with further qualifications, what cannot be identified with any certainty is what the claimant's earning capacity is. What is clear is that he does have a residual earning capacity.
5. What is also clear to me is that he is not able to work in his chosen profession as a nurse. As the medical material makes out his injuries, and most particularly his back injury following his lumbar spinal surgery, would prevent this.
6. At the assessment conference the claimant, in response to questioning as to his current activities, responded that he currently invests his own money in shares and cryptocurrency, he looks into investments, he reads and takes advice about investment options but otherwise has not undertaken any further vocational training courses nor investigated any employment opportunities since returning to Australia at the beginning of 2023.
7. In my view, the claimant does have a residual earning capacity which has not been investigated and, consequently, unrealised. This does not mean that it does not exist rather that it is, to some extent, a matter of speculation.
8. The claimant, noting his relative youth, could readily retrain in an occupation which he was physically capable of performing.
9. The material contains a very large amount of both medical and allied health observations in respect to what the claimant is capable of performing. The Vocational Assessment report of Lisa Mumford dated 22 March 2023 outlines the claimant's functional tolerances, education, training and experience and identifies employment opportunities which the claimant could pursue within those functional tolerance limits.
10. The report of Dr Breit dated 10 November 2025 states:

"At this stage, I would indicate that he could work four hours per day, five days per week, in an area where there is no bending, stooping, lifting or carrying more than 5KG, and where he can sit, stand and move about according to comfort."

1. This is reflective of a significant reduction in work capacity noting in particular the limitations on the hours of work put on the claimant.
2. I accept the claimant would, but for his injuries, have completed his nursing degree and be employed in that profession. I accept the claimant's contention, noting the report of A Asmar (Changing Ways) dated 3 September 2025 that a registered nurse in the private sector earns in the order of $1,686 net per week. In the public sector this figure is about $1,972 per week.

These figures do not take into account overtime options or penalties applied for shiftwork. In my view, and noting in particular the report of Dr Breit, I consider it appropriate to calculate a buffer for future economic loss based on a general loss of earnings in the order of $900 per week with appropriate allowances for employer superannuation contributions.

1. I assess future economic loss, by way of a buffer, in the amount of $770,000 inclusive of loss of employer superannuation contributions.

1. I asses the claimant's damages, including past and future economic loss together with non-economic loss in the sum of $1,390,000.

1. I have been provided with calculations in respect to cost and disbursement from the claimant and I assess costs in the amount of $99,090.20.