Issued under s 7.13(4) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

The findings of the assessment of this dispute are as follows:

1. The reviewable decision concerns the amount of statutory benefits that are payable under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act) and is therefore a merit review matter under Schedule 2 (1)(a) of the MAI Act.
2. The internal review decision dated 10 October 2025 that the claimant did not incur a loss of earnings as a result of the subject accident and is therefore not entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits under the MAI Act is affirmed.

1. Alexia Diana Daniele Saadouni (the claimant) was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 1 January 2024. She was riding her motorcycle along Market St, Sydney when a collision occurred between her motorcycle and the insured motor vehicle. She sustained injuries to her left leg and was taken by ambulance to St Vincents Hospital, where she was admitted for treatment.
2. A dispute has arisen in the claim as Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (the insurer) issued a decision on 4 June 2024, determining the claimant did not suffer a loss of earnings because of the subject accident and accordingly, is not entitled to payment of weekly statutory benefits. The claimant has referred the dispute to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for determination.

1. Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act) provide that:

"An earner who is injured as a result of a motor accident and suffers a total or partial loss of earnings as a result of the injury is entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits."

1. Schedule 1 to the MAI Act provides a series of definitions which apply to the determination of weekly payments of statutory benefits:

(a) "earner" is defined in cl 2 as a person who was employed or self-employed at any time during the eight weeks immediately before the motor accident.

(b) loss of earnings is defined in cl 3 as "loss incurred or likely to be incurred in a person's income from personal exertion", and

(c) pre-injury average weekly earnings (PAWE) is defined in cl 4 as "the weekly average of the gross earnings received by the earner as an earner during the 12 months immediately before the day on which the motor accident occurred."

1. An injured person's "income from personal exertion" is explained in cl 3(2) as being:

"(a) the amount that is the income of the person consisting of, earnings, salaries wages, commissions, fees, bonuses, pensions, retiring allowances and retiring gratuities, allowances and gratuities received in the capacity of employee or in relation to any services rendered, and

(b) the proceeds of any business carried on by the person either alone or in partnership with any other person, and

(c) any amount received as bounty or subsidy in carrying on a business."

1. Sub-clause (3) provides an injured person's income from personal exertion, does not include interest, rents dividends, superannuation contributions or leave entitlements.
2. Schedule 1 clause 8 provides

"(1) Post accident earning capacity of an injured person means,

For the first and second entitlement periods - the weekly amount that the person has the capacity to earn in the employment in which the person was engaged immediately before the motor accident determined, on the basis of the person's fitness for work in that employment."

DETERMINATION OF THE INSURER AND INSURER'S SUBMISSIONS

1. Pursuant to ss 3.6 and 3.7 of the MAI Act, weekly payments are only payable if as a result of the motor accident the claimant suffers a loss or partial loss of earnings as a result of the injury. For the purposes of this dispute, the insurer concedes the claimant was an earner pursuant of Schedule 1 clause 2 (a) of the MAI Act, however, disputes she suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the motor accident or injury sustained in the accident.
2. The claimant lodged an application for Personal Injury Benefits on 2 February 2024. At the time of the subject accident, she was employed on a full-time basis as a hairdresser. The insurer submits she was certified fit for preinjury employment in a Certificate of Capacity dated 15 April 2024, and the insurer disputes her submissions, she was unable to resume her full-time employment as a hairdresser.
3. The insurer submits the claimant by letter dated 31 May 2024 was terminated from her employment and this letter makes no reference to injuries or impairments sustained in the subject accident. Accordingly, the insurer disputes her assertion her injuries impacted her ability to perform her duties correctly and resulted in her loss of income.
4. The insurer submits where the claim for loss of earnings is not as a consequence of injuries sustained in the subject accident, she has no entitlement to weekly payments during the second entitlement period. It is further submitted the claim for loss of earnings is not because of injury sustained and her incapacity for employment, but rather due to the termination of her employment following concerns regarding her performance and conduct,
5. Her Notice of Assessment for the financial year 2023 reflected gross annual income of $62,091. I refer to the report of Dr Gordon Slater, orthopaedic surgeon, dated 2 April 2024 where he advised the claimant would have capacity to return to work in four to eight weeks' time whilst wearing a CAM boot on her ankle.
6. With respect to the claimant's capacity for employment the insurer submits a summary of the relevant Certificates of Capacity,

(a) from the period 1 January 2024 to 23 January 2024, no current capacity for any work.

(b) From the period 23 January 2024 to 17 March 2024, capacity for some type of work, eight hours per day, two days per week

(c) From the period 15 March 2024 to 12 April 2024, capacity for some type of work for eight hours per day two days per week.

(d) From the period 15 April 2024 and onwards. Fit for preinjury work

1. It is submitted noting the claimant was certified fit for preinjury employment in the Certificate of Capacity dated 15 April 2024, the insurer disputes her submissions she was unable to resume her full-time employment as a hairdresser.
2. The letter of termination from her employer dated 31 May 2024 makes no reference to injuries or impairment sustained in the subject accident which may have impacted her ability to perform her duties correctly and resulted in her loss of income. The letter references certain incidences involving the claimant which resulted in her termination of employment
3. It is also noted she was successful in obtaining alternative employment, following her dismissal comparable to her previous employment.
4. It is submitted where her losses are not causally related to injuries sustained in the subject accident, she has no entitlement to weekly payments during the second entitlement period. The available evidence suggests her loss of earnings is not because of injuries sustained and her incapacity for employment, but rather due to the termination of employment following concerns regarding her performance and conduct.

1. At the preliminary conference with the parties on 2 December 2025 I made a direction to the claimant to serve on the insurer and lodge on the portal, her income taxation returns for the financial years ending 2024 and 2025, on or before 16 December 2025. These returns were lodged and have been reviewed by me.
2. The 2025 taxation return confirms she successfully obtained comparable employment with Holmes Employment Services Pty Ltd commencing on 11 June 2024. From the commencement of the financial year 2025, to the birth of her daughter on 6 November 2024, she earned $14,913 in this role.
3. I note the claimant forwarded an email to the insurer dated 3rd of June 2024 and stated the following

"I have been dismissed because of my pregnancy, in the letter of dismissal, I have other excuses. There is a Fair Work investigation at the moment, in the meantime, I would like to know as my foot is not completely ill (sic) and I found a part time job, if it was possible to resume some payment from my claim by any chance?"

1. Furthermore, I note the claimant made a written request dated 26 September 2025 to the insurer, that she wished to resolve the matter on the basis she receive a lump sum payment of $6,000, which corresponds to her wages lost, which is equivalent the $200 weekly loss from 10 June 2024 until 30 December 2024.
2. The claimant was directed by me to serve on the insurer and lodge on the portal any further written submissions on or before 16 December 2025 but chose not to do so. The claimant has not sought to further refute the submission by the insurer regarding her termination of employment by her employer.
3. The letter dated 31 May 2024 clearly states she was terminated from her employment for incidences involving her behaviour and her termination was not due to any inability on her behalf to perform her duties correctly.

1. I determine, on the information before me, the claimant it did not incur a loss of earnings because of the subject accident and is therefore not entitled to weekly payments of statutory benefits under the MAI Act.
2. The reviewable decision of the insurer is affirmed.