Issued under Division 7.5 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

1. Revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Singh dated 30 June 2024.
2. Certifies that the psychological or psychiatric injury sustained by the claimant in the accident on 31 March 2022 is not a threshold injury for the purposes of the Act.

A statement setting out the Panel's reasons for the assessment is included with this certificate.

1. Glenn Sammon was involved in a motor accident on 31 March 2022 in the Darlinghurst area of Sydney. He was a pedestrian crossing a laneway when an incident or accident occurred involving a police van.
2. Mr Sammon says he was physically injured in the accident and that he later developed a psychological or psychiatric injury. Mr Sammon made a claim for statutory benefits against QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, the third-party insurer of the vehicle that he says caused his accident and his injuries.
3. A medical dispute about whether the claimant's injuries are threshold injuries or not has arisen in connection with that claim and Mr Sammon referred that dispute to the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for assessment.
4. Medical Assessor Singh determined on 30 June 2024 that Mr Sammon's psychological or psychiatric injury was a threshold injury.
5. Mr Sammon has lodged an application with the Commission seeking a review of the Medical Assessor's decision. On 16 September 2024, a delegate of the President determined there was reasonable cause to suspect a material error in the assessment and allowed the Review and on 14 May 2025 the President's delegate convened this Panel to conduct that Review.

1. Mr Sammon's statutory benefits claim is governed by the provisions of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act). This legislation provides a scheme for the compulsory third-party insurance of all motor vehicles registered in New South Wales and a scheme of statutory benefits (under Part 3) and compensation by way of lump sum damages (under Part 4) for persons injured in motor accidents in New South Wales.
2. While almost all injured persons are entitled to some statutory benefits in accordance with Part 3 of the MAI Act, there are some disentitling provisions and limits to the amount and extent of benefits payable. For persons, like Mr Sammon, who are injured in motor accidents before 1 April 2023[1] they cannot receive statutory benefits beyond 26 weeks after the accident if their only injuries are threshold injuries (see ss 3.11 and 3.28).
3. For those persons injured due to the fault of the owner or driver of a motor vehicle in the use or operation of that vehicle, a claim for damages can be made however, damages cannot be recovered if the claimant's only injuries are "threshold" injuries (see s 4.4).

1. A threshold injury is defined in s 1.6(1) of the MAI Act as a "soft tissue injury" in the case of physical injuries and in the case of mental health issues, "a psychological or psychiatric injury that is not a recognised psychiatric illness".
2. Section 1.6(4) provides that regulations may be made to exclude or include an injury as a threshold injury. Part 1, cl 4(2) of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (the Regulation) says that an acute stress disorder and an adjustment disorder are threshold injuries.
3. Section 1.6(5) says that the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines) may provide the method of assessment for threshold injuries. The Guidelines[2] provide:

"[5.10] In assessing whether an injury is a threshold psychological or psychiatric injury, an assessment of whether a psychiatric illness is present is essential.

[5.11] The assessment of whether a psychiatric illness is present must be made using the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), published by the American Psychiatric Association."

1. The Guidelines provide the method of determining whether an injured person has a recognised psychiatric illness or not (thereby excluding unrecognised psychiatric illnesses from the recovery of benefits and damages in accordance with 1.6(3) of the MAI Act). If the claimant has a disorder that is not recognised in the DSM-5-TR, that injury must be a threshold injury by operation of the Act. If the claimant is diagnosed with an adjustment disorder or acute stress disorder, they are both recognised psychiatric illnesses, but are threshold injuries pursuant to cl 4(2) of the Regulation.

1. If there is a dispute about whether an injured person's injuries are threshold injuries or not, that matter is declared a medical assessment matter which may be referred to the Commission for determination.[3]
2. Chapter 7, Division 7.5 of the MAI Act provides for medical assessments by the Commission including provisions relevant to an original medical assessment such as Medical Assessor Singh's, further medical assessments and the review of medical assessments by this Panel.[4]
3. Where there is evidence establishing that the accident caused a non-threshold injury, at any time after the accident, a finding must be made that the accident caused a non-threshold injury even if the injury has healed, or the claimant has recovered from the injury, or the condition is in remission at the time of the medical assessment.[5]
4. If the claimant has a pre-existing non-threshold psychiatric condition (such as post-traumatic stress disorder) and the evidence establishes that a later accident caused or materially contributed to a worsening of that pre-existing condition, that aggravation injury will also be a 'non-threshold' injury.[6]

1. Medical Assessor Singh examined the claimant on 18 June 2024 and issued his certificate on 30 June 2024. The Medical Assessor confirms at [2][7] that he was asked to assess a "psychiatric condition - posttraumatic stress disorder. Major depressive disorder. Alcohol use disorder."
2. Medical Assessor Singh has at [6] - [8] the following history from the claimant:

(a) the claimant was a fitter in underground mining and lived with his wife and two children;

(b) he was married before and his wife left him. Two of their children live with her and three other children are adults and live independently;

(c) the claimant reported as a result of his marriage breakup he had a "mental breakdown" and was admitted to Taree Hospital and was prescribed medication. He said he had recovered and was doing well at the time of the accident;

(d) he hurt his shoulder and had an injection in his shoulder about two years before the accident;

(e) the claimant could not remember what happened in the accident as he was in shock and hit his head;

(f) the Medical Assessor notes the records suggest the claimant had been hit twice, once by a police car and then the wall of a building;

(g) the police checked on him but considered he was not injured. After two days he developed neck, lower back, right hip and right foot pain and went to Northern Beaches Hospital for medical assessment;

(h) the claimant reported flashbacks of what happened, walking around the corner to cross the road. He sees the van coming in his dreams, he did not see any flashing lights and looked the other way, he walked and was hit;

(i) the claimant said the police did not tell the truth and he felt angry, depressed and does not trust anyone including doctors. "He has been told that all this is fake";

(j) he tried hypnosis but could not be put under and says he is willing to go into lie detection as "I am telling the truth";

(k) his mental health has deteriorated and that this did not happen straight away. He does not sleep well and gets lost when driving. He thinks about the accident and forgets what people say to him, and

(l) he has not worked since the accident.

1. The claimant reports getting angry with his wife and children. He says he takes his children to school, goes to his doctors and reads the reports. He tries to do things around the house, but his wife says he is lazy. He does not go out and does not do the shopping.
2. The claimant denied nightmares and flashbacks but says he wakes up and cannot remember if he dreamed but he thinks about the accident and what people have said about the accident and that no one believes him about the accident.
3. He says he has pain in his neck, back, shoulders and feet.
4. The claimant reported thinking about the best way to die but then said he has no intent or plan to harm himself.
5. The claimant said he sees his psychologist monthly, but he has not seen a psychiatrist. He sees a general practitioner (GP) and that he used to be on medication but has stopped taking the medication.
6. He takes Panadeine Forte when his pain gets worse and Pregabalin and Clonidine at night.
7. Medical Assessor Singh lists at [16] the DMS-5 criteria for an adjustment disorder and says the claimant meets the criteria for an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood but says it was not caused by the accident.
8. He considered the possibility of relapse or exacerbation of a pre-existing depression but does not appear to be satisfied that the claimant has sustained such a disorder.
9. Medical Assessor Singh says at [17] the claimant does not have a post-traumatic stress disorder and does not present with symptoms of major depressive disorder but gives no further reasons.
10. Medical Assessor Singh says he does not agree with Dr Khan's diagnosis but does not give reasons. He agrees with the report of Dr O'Neill that there is no direct injury caused by the accident but does not give reasons.
11. Because he found none of the listed injuries were caused by the accident, he determined it was not necessary to determine whether they were threshold injuries or not.

Claimant's submissions to the President's delegate[8]

1. The claimant says at [4] the Medical Assessor failed to provide adequate reasons and at [5] that although causation was in issue he did not engage with the evidence and the issue.
2. The claimant says at [10] - [13] that the Medical Assessor gave no reasons for his causation decision in respect of the adjustment disorder, no reasons for why the claimant did not meet the criteria for a post-traumatic stress disorder or major depressive disorder. In particular the claimant notes the Medical Assessor did not cite the criteria for any of these disorders.
3. The claimant says at [15] there was a medical controversy between the parties as evidenced by the diverse opinions of the experts and that the Medical Assessor did not explain at all why he made the findings he made about causation.

Insurer's submissions to the President's delegate

1. The insurer says at [19] that the Medical Assessor has disclosed his path of reasoning in determining the adjustment disorder and has documented the claimant's condition, symptoms, psychiatric history and the evidence.
2. The insurer says at [25] - [27] there is no positive obligation for a Medical Assessor to set out the criteria of disorders the claimant does not have.
3. The insurer says the Medical Assessor is allowed to form his own opinion and apply his medical expertise.

1. In the insurer's submissions filed with the application for medical assessment the insurer said:

(a) the claimant has alleged different injuries at various times in the claim, reported no injuries immediately after the accident and has not provided consistent histories [2], [7] and [8];

(b) the insurer's doctors have considered the claimant's conditions either pre-existing conditions or threshold injuries [5];

(c) the accident was low speed and could not have caused the level of physical injury alleged [6], and

(d) the claimant's doctors have not had an accurate history [10].

1. The insurer pointed to pre-accident physical injuries and a pre-accident psychiatric history [12] - [14].
2. The insurer records the claimant's psychological complaints starting with therapy from

Ms Croce from 19 November 2022 and 24 August 2023 (four attendances) [39]. The claimant was angry, resentful and was concerned about future finances [40]. There were concerns recorded about his case [41] - [43]. 3. The insurer referred to the two reports from psychiatrists, Dr O'Neill for the insurer [46] and Dr Khan for the claimant [47].

1. The claimant lodged submissions dated 17 June 2025 with the claimant's bundle of documents. While written by the claimant's solicitor, the submissions contain much that is in the nature of evidence and which the Panel considers could have been given by the claimant himself by way of a statement. The claimant says:

(a) Mr Sammon was "dazed", "fuzzy" and disoriented due to the collision [3];

(b) while the police van stopped, the police did not give the claimant the opportunity to voice his complaints and injuries [4] and abandoned him at the scene [6];

(c) Mr Sammon was injured in the collision [5];

(d) there are conflicting reports of the speed of the vehicle [7];

(e) the police said there was no damage to the vehicle but that a photograph taken a few days after the accident of the vehicle shows damage to the vehicle [8], and

(f) other inaccuracies and inconsistencies are set out in relation to the evidence of Constable Pinto [9] - [13].

"[14] The police, actions, inconsistencies, contradictions in their reports and glaring inaccuracies made Mr Sammon very distressed in the period following the accident.

[15] Mr Sammon became focused and obsessed on correcting the record relating to the accident."

1. The claimant became concerned and took steps to obtain CCTV footage of the incident which caused further distress [16] - [20].
2. The claimant attended the police station on 4 April 2022 to report the accident and took photographs of a van parked outside and says this is the van that struck the claimant and there is damage to it [21] - [24]. The claimant "felt he was being gaslit by the police and this further distressed him." The submissions go on to say:

"[26] As a result of a strong impact with the police van, Mr Sammon suffered a long list of physical injures and is in constant pain in his back and neck. He endures broken sleep as a result of this pain.

[27] The constant and unrelenting pain and subsequent broken sleep has contributed to his psychiatric injuries."

1. The submissions then again go into matters which are really things that the Panel considers should be in evidence such as the claimant's ability to effectively communicate and that doctors have never asked him for a full list of symptoms [28] - [30]. The claimant submits his GP would structure his consultations by asking about the most severe things first and that this may explain the discrepancy in symptoms [31] - [34].
2. The claimant says it was not until he went to see Dr Dixon that he was asked for a complete and comprehensive history of all of his injuries [35].
3. The claimant says on 31 August 2022 a letter from his GP indicates he had issues with his mood due to ongoing pain [29] and that his difficulties sleeping due to pain were documented by Dr Rhau on 12 May 2022 [37] and that Mr O'Neill discouraged mental health treatment in his report of 19 April 2023 [38].
4. The claimant submits he did not feel comfortable reporting matters to Ms Croce and only felt comfortable with Dr Khan who asked more intense questions and probed more than

Ms Croce [39]. He also submits that being withdrawn and unresponsive is part of his condition [40]. 5. The claimant submits he continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder [41] and his symptoms have increased in severity [42] and are related to and arise from the accident or events causally connected with the accident.

1. The Panel issued directions to the parties on 28 May 2025 seeking a single bundle of documents from each party. The claimant complied with a bundle of 248 pages on

17 June 2025, and the insurer uploaded its bundle of 85 documents on 16 July 2025. 2. The Panel met on 12 August 2025 to determine the way in which the matter would proceed and reported to the parties. 3. After providing some comments about the location of the accident (in the immediate proximity to the Commission's premises) the Panel said at paragraph 9:

"There is considerable controversy as to precisely how this accident happened. It is not for this Panel to determine that controversy. The Panel is proceeding on the basis that there was an incident involving a police car driving along Wemyss Lane, and the claimant as he was attempting to cross Wemyss Lane, and that the claimant says as a result of the totality of the circumstances of the accident he sustained physical injuries and developed psychological symptoms after the accident."

1. After acknowledging the various diagnoses made by the claimant's expert and Medical Assessor Singh, the Panel said at [11] - [13]:

"The Panel notes that the Medical Assessors on the Panel are required, in accordance with the Guidelines, to determine if the claimant has a psychological or psychiatric injury caused by the accident and then make a diagnosis of that injury.

The Medical Assessors may, in their clinical judgment, diagnose a condition that is the same as, or different to, the diagnosis of the original Medical Assessor or the diagnoses of the treating doctors or medico-legal experts or the particular diagnosis that may have been included in the application or reply form.

Having made a diagnosis, the Panel will then proceed to undertake an assessment of whether the injury is a threshold injury or not."

1. The Panel requested up to date treatment records from the claimant's GP and his treating psychologists and psychiatrist.
2. The Panel requested documents and any final submissions from the claimant by

12 September 2025 and documents and any final submissions from the insurer by

1. The insurer uploaded a copy of the liability notice in response to the claimant's damages claim. The insurer subsequently uploaded a copy of the liability notice concerning fault in respect of the statutory benefits claim.
2. The insurer advised by way of a message in the portal on 25 September 2025 that the insurer did not wish to provide any further documents or lodge any final submissions.
3. The claimant advised the Panel on 25 September 2025 that updated records from Ms Croce, psychologist and the Oaktree Medical Centre had been requested. An additional bundle of records was received on 7 October 2025.

1. The claimant attended the re-examination as required.
2. The Panel met on 13 November 2025 to discuss the Medical Assessors' findings and with a view to finalising the assessment. These have all been allowed into evidence and have been considered.

1. Mr Sammon's application for personal injury benefits (the claim form) was dated

26 April 2022.[9] In it, Mr Sammon said he has not made a previous motor accident claim for injury and nominated 31 April 2022 as the date of the accident at about 1.00pm (clearly an error as the accident occurred on 31 March 2022). 2. He described the accident as involving him being struck by a police vehicle while crossing a lane and his body was spun around and he "slicked up against the wall" of the lane. He listed injuries to both shoulders, a whiplash neck injury and injuries to the back of his head, knees and foot. 3. He says he went to Northern Beaches Hospital on 3 April 2022 and denied any illness or injury affecting him at the time of the accident. 4. The insurer provided a copy of an interview with police officer Pinto dated

30 September 2022.[10] He was in the passenger seat of the police van. He says the claimant stepped off the footpath onto the roadway while not looking and walked into the side of the van [A 12]. 5. Officer Pinto confirms they were proceeding on a code blue which means no lights and no sirens [A21] and [A22] however as they turned into the lane the warning lights were activated [A23]. 6. The officer said the claimant was looking away from where the police car was entering the lane [A35] towards where a person who had a cardiac arrest was (and the intended event the police were attending [37]) and he walked into the side of the van just before or just after the side mirror [43]. 7. The officer confirmed he was a male and that Constable Hackett driving the car was blonde [50] and [52] (noting that the claimant had said the police officer who got out of the car was female with black dark brown shoulder length hair). 8. Officer Pinto confirms he enquired after the claimant who said he was fine or okay but was shocked a bit [48] and [54]. He says the vehicle was being driven at about 10kmph and they were turning left from Wentworth Avenue [55]. 9. A police incident report was apparently filed later that day [60]. 10. The claimant provided the police with a handwritten note the date of which is uncertain,[11] the statement he gave to the police on 4 April 2022, and photographs of a police van parked outside the Surry Hills Police Station photographed a few days after the accident.[12] 11. The handwritten note refers to the time and date and location of the accident and

Mr Sammon says he was hit by a vehicle turning left and his right shoulder, elbow, butt, back and right side were hit. He says he had "Nil bruising but tender and sore". The claimant refers to going to the doctor on 3 April and calling the police station on 1 April 2022. 12. The claimant gave a statement to police on 4 April 2022 at Surry Hills Police station. He says:

(a) as he was going to cross Wemyss Lane he checked to see if cars were coming and went to cross [4];

(b) he stepped onto the road and "out of nowhere" a police van turned off Wentworth Road into Wemyss Lane and hit him. He did not feel pain at the time but was in shock [5];

(c) he had dropped his wallet, picked it up and noticed the police van and realised he had been hit, the female officer in the passenger seat asked him if he was OK and he said he was and she said, "are you sure you are OK" and he again said he was [6];

(d) the police just left as they were in a rush. He did not recall light or sirens and went back to his wife [7];

(e) he felt pain later that night down the right side of his body [8];

(f) on 1 April 2022 he called the police station (Constable Glisson) to make the report and was advised a Sergeant would get back to him [9];

(g) on 3 April 2022 he was in pain and unable to work so he went to Northern Beaches Hospital and was given a medical certificate [10], and

(h) he returned to the Police Station to give a statement [11].

1. The two photographs of a police van outside the Surry Hils Police station show left hand side damage between the left side wing mirror and the front of the car.

1. The determination of the dispute about whether any of the claimant's injuries are threshold injuries or not determines whether the claimant can receive ongoing benefits in his statutory benefits claim and whether he can recover damages in his common law claim.
2. The insurer has, at the request of the Panel provided the most recent liability notices issued by it in each of the claims:

(a) on 13 June 2025 QBE advised that the damages "application is rejected". The insurer advised that it had decided its insured owed a duty of care, "breached their duty of care" and Mr Sammon sustained injury, loss and damage as a result of the insured's negligence. There is no mention of contributory negligence in this letter, but the insurer refers to the threshold injury decisions it has made, and the decisions made by Medical Assessors Singh and Home, and

(b) on 20 October 2025 QBE advised in the statutory benefits claim that "liability is not accepted after 26 weeks from the date of the crash." The reasons given were that the insured driver "has not breached their duty of care", the "crash" was not a no-fault accident, and the claimant has sustained a threshold injury. The insurer says the claimant's "contributory negligence" in respect of his injury is assessed at 80% and that therefore the claimant is "mostly at fault for the motor crash."

1. While the damages claim liability notice admits the police officer driving the van has breached a duty of care to the claimant (that is the officer was at fault and was negligent), the statutory benefits liability notice says the officer behind the wheel of the police vehicle has not breached his duty of care to the claimant. It is not a matter for the Panel to reconcile these two liability notices but the Panel encourages the insurer to address the apparent inconsistency between the two notices.

1. The claimant attended the Northern Beaches Hospital on 3 April 2022 at 1.40pm and was discharged at 3.25pm. The discharge summary[13] says Mr Sammon was hit by a car on his right-hand side, was spun around and supported himself on a wall so he did not fall to the ground. He is reported to have not lost consciousness. It was said he did not feel any pain at the time and was in a rush. He reported that the lady police officer asked if he was OK and when he said he was Ok, the police left.
2. The claimant says he now has pain in the right side of his body, the right shoulder and right hip but he can walk and perform activities of daily living without any issue.
3. On examination it was noted that the claimant looked distressed. They did a "head to toe exam". There was no bruising, no signs of tenderness, upper and lower limbs had a full range of movement. X-rays were taken of the cervical spine, shoulder and hip showing no fractures.
4. Mr Sammon was discharged home and advised to take regular pain medication. He was given a medical certificate saying he was unfit to work from 3 to 9 April 2022.

Dr Onyejekwulum, GP of Sonic Health Plus Moranbah then certified the claimant until to work to 16 April 2022.[14] 5. On 14 April 2022, Ms Grillmeier physiotherapist of Construct Health in Moranbah reported to the claimant's GP[15] and confirmed she had provided treatment to the claimant who reported pain in both shoulders and pain in his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. She said this was following a side swipe from a police van as he was stepping off the kerb. He reports being hit on the right shoulder and buttock, spun and hit his left shoulder "and rolled along the car and hit his back." 6. Radiology of the shoulders performed on 6 May 2022 suggested soft tissue injuries and no fractures or tendon ruptures. Radiology of the spine showed oedema at C3 and C4 which "could be from contusion" and degenerative changes with foraminal narrowing and nerve root impingement at the right C4 and C5 nerve root. Mild degenerative changes in the thoraco-lumbar spine were noted including disc bulges at T6/7, T7/8 and T10/11 and from L2/3 - L5S1. 7. Mr Cuskelly, physiotherapist, of Construct Health wrote a "to whom it may concern" letter dated 27 April 2022.[16] He had seen the claimant on 23 April 2022 and noted "Mr Sammon's exact recollections of the incident are not definitive with regards to where he was struck." Because of his pain the claimant had not returned to work. When assessed, the claimant's range of motion was "globally restricted" mostly due to pain and muscle guarding, as opposed to "assessable stiffness." Mr Cuskelly could not diagnose the claimant due to this. 8. On 12 May 2022, Dr Koesmarini of Oak Tree Family Medical Centre (Oak Tree) referred the claimant to Dr Rhau, orthopaedic surgeon "for opinion and help in management generalised upper back pain".[17] 9. Records from Sonic Health Plus commence on 14 August 2019 with a visit to Dr Ridings for left shoulder pain and restricted movement due to a fall four months earlier. An ultrasound was requested with X-ray. The claimant next attended on 24 September 2019 for a lump on his back which was interfering with right shoulder motion. A further request for an ultrasound was written or a request to see the ultrasound of the left shoulder which had been done in hospital. 10. During 2021 the claimant attended several times for respiratory and flu symptoms. 11. On 9 April 202 the claimant attended Dr Onyejekwulum reporting lower back pain. This was not radiating and there were no neurological symptoms reported. On 27 April 2022 the claimant returned with insurance firms and was said to be tender over the left trapezius since being hit by the police van although he had a full range of shoulder motion. Dr Onyejekwulum noted the claimant had been given a form for an MRI by another doctor (the Panel notes this would appear to be Dr Koesmarini). 12. Dr Rhau wrote a report to Comcare on 23 May 2022. He was a shoulder surgeon and records the claimant's pain in both shoulders, and he diagnosed a neck injury. He noted significant degenerative changes in all levels of the cervical spine. 13. On 7 June 2022, Dr Koesmarini referred the claimant to Dr Yang for "opinion and help in management [of] whiplash neck injury with back pain."[18] 14. The claimant had a whole-body scan on 20 July 2022 for "pain upper arms predominantly". On 11 August 2022 he had a CT scan of his lumbar spine due to ongoing back pain. 15. On 28 June 2022 Ms Stranks, occupational therapist with Procare reported to the insurer concerning the claimant's needs since the accident. She records:

(a) the claimant had been prescribed Amitriptyline, Diclofenac and Diazepam which he had chosen not to take;

(b) the claimant lived in Queensland and was visiting Sydney. He received care from Dr Koesmarini in his hometown;

(c) he has counselling from "Carmilla" who he talks to about how he is feeling;

(d) he has had physiotherapy and hydrotherapy;

(e) he has had shoulder injections and saw Dr Rhau in Mackay in May 2022. He was going to see Dr Yang for his back in August 2022, and

(f) he had a previous left shoulder joint injury treated with a cortisone injection but had no further problems.

1. The claimant expressed concerns over his financial situation noting the cost of moving his mother to live with him and he had a home, an investment property and his first wife and children to support. Ms Stranks reports the claimant appeared overwhelmed at times and he reported poor memory and was seen to be anxious and fidget.
2. Ms Stranks takes a history of:

Mr Sammon reported that he is currently 'very stressed', particularly due to his financial situation and the uncertainty of when he may be able to return to work.

He reported his concentration to be all over the place since the injury, something that he reports is out of character for him.

He advised that he has become more forgetful, stating that he has to write everything down now, otherwise he will not remember.

He explained that he also has become more easily frustrated by situations; something that he was not previously affected by can trigger him."

1. The claimant said he was hit by a vehicle travelling at 50kmph and he was hit by the front left-hand side of the van. He said he lost consciousness and impacted the brick wall on the pathway with his hands before falling to the ground.
2. The claimant reported that the police van stopped, and an officer asked him if he was OK. He said he felt immediate pain in the right shoulder and neck and that the next day he felt pain in both shoulders and the neck.
3. The claimant said he was becoming less social, was anxious answering the phone and his concentration was poor.
4. On 7 July 2022 a case conference occurred between the claimant, Ms Stranks and

Dr Koesmarini. The claimant's injuries were listed as left and right shoulder acromioclavicular (AC) injuries, C4 contusion, concussion and back pain (exacerbation of degeneration). The report[19] says:

"Mr Sammon reported suffering from increasing anxiety about the delay in his recovery and fears regarding his financial situation. He reported that he would benefit from speaking with a Counsellor or psychologist. Dr Koesmarini recommended consulting directly with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offered through his employer. Mr Sammon reported that he would be making conact .. over the coming days."

1. The insurer sent Dr Yang, orthopaedic surgeon a questionnaire which he has completed on 15 August 2022. He says:

(a) there is no evidence of injury to the spine other than an aggravation of degenerative changes. He said the advice was for the claimant to keep moving and increase weights as he was able;

(b) he expressed the view the claimant might not be able to return to duties unless he is willing to put up with some stiffness and discomfort and that "this is expected of someone of his age performing physical duties", and

(c) he recommended the claimant be seen by an orthopaedic surgeon to assess the AC joints.

1. On 10 September 2022 the claimant had hypnotherapy for "pain and recall details" in Mackay.[20]
2. Dr Koesmarini referred the claimant to Ms Croce for "opinion and help in management [of] adjustment disorder with anxiety mood." Ms Croce first saw the claimant on 19 November 2022. It appears she administered the DASS 21 with the claimant scoring 42 overall and 9 for depression, 6 for anxiety and 14 for stress all of which were in the normal range. Her clinical notes[21] include the following:

(a) 19 November 2022 - recounted accident and follow-up. Angry and resentful. Concerned about the future - financial;

(b) 8 December 2022 - the claimant had three months pay, saw a rehabilitation specialist who provided a report which he though had a lot of errors. He went to a back specialist in Mackay where he "felt he was treated rudely." He went to another back specialist in Sydney who told him his injury is degenerative. He is distrusting of the medical profession and the insurance process;

(c) 5 January 2023 - still experiencing daily pain, angry about the police not taking responsibility, minimising their responsibility, lying about the speed of the police vehicle. Angry about the reports. Some signs of grief around the loss of capability and concerns about the future. She administered the DASS and the post-traumatic stress disorder checklist which he scored 32 "indicating symptoms of PTSD";

(d) 19 January 2023 - still in pain. Working on training physiotherapy and rehabilitation. He was a bit more agitated than usual; feels he gets a bit angry and agitated with his wife. He was "starting to develop some hypervigilance and paranoia about the process, both medically and dealing with the insurance system";

(e) 14 February 2023 - the claimant had returned from Sydney, and his mother was not well. He was "stressed and anxious about his case" and having suicidal thoughts but has strong protective factors. He was also having vengeful thoughts but was at low risk of harm to others, and

(f) 23 August 2023 - the claimant reported to have accepted he is unlikely to return to work in the same role. She records "has been gradually remembering the incident and piecing the accident together. There was an impact on the family and he had a break from his wife. He was having suicidal ideation, feeling more angry and reactive than usual, and he was having vengeful thoughts.

1. On 27 January 2023, Dr Whiting of BeWorkFit in Mackay wrote to Ms Croce in regards to a consultation with the claimant in Sydney the year before. The claimant was apparently frustrated as he was looking to find evidence of an "injury" rather than degeneration to explain the pain he was experiencing.
2. On 19 May 2023 the claimant had an MRI of his left and right ankle with a clinical history of "hit by vehicle 31 March 22. Ongoing right ankle pain to rule out occult ligament or joint injury." No fracture or ligamentous injury was seen but there was a small bone bruise and low-grade strain suggested.
3. Mr Schneider wrote to Dr Whiting on 7 June 2023. The DASS 21 showed mild depression, anxiety and moderate stress and the claimant was reported to be "significantly deconditioned, pain focussed and not adjusted to injury". He noted piecemeal management and recommended a co-ordinated multidisciplinary occupational rehabilitation program.
4. On 28 November 2023 Dr Koesmarini wrote another referral to MindMatters "for your opinion and help in management anxiety / depression background with chronic pain."
5. Ms Croce's additional bundle of documents includes notes from Ms Croce as follows:

(a) on 19 January 2023 the claimant was in pain but working on his physical rehabilitation. He reported a little more agitated than usual and was developing some hypervigilance and paranoia about the medical and insurance process;

(b) on 14 February 2024 the claimant had been unwell and had been diagnosed with partial deflation of the lung and swollen kidneys "been thinking that it may have been due to the impact of the accident". Mr Sammon was concerned about his marriage;

(c) on 13 March 2024 the claimant was a little more down and depressed and was a bit more agitated at home. The claimant reported to her that 21 years before his first wife had left him unexpectedly and that for the next 10 years they had an on again off again relationship. When he discovered his wife had been cheating, he said he had attempted suicide by walking in front of a truck and was hospitalised in Taree. The claimant discussed alcohol reduction with the psychologist and stress in the current relationship;

(d) on 23 April 2024 Mr Sammon was frustrated with life, isolated, lacking in focus, stressed in his marriage, financial issues, he and the family had travelled to the Philippines to see his wife's family, he was trying to reduce his drinking;

(e) on 24 May 2024 the claimant was frustrated and reported QBE was saying his injuries ae degenerative and he had been revisiting the accident and everything that had happened since. He was having ongoing marital stress, sleep disturbance and trying to reduce drinking but was drinking more;

(f) on 21 June 2024 there was more frustration with the insurance company and inaccuracies in the reports. The claimant felt he was not being believed by the doctors and that the police were not reporting the facts correctly. She considered he met the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress diorder and again issues were raised about drinking and sleep;

(g) on 25 September 2024, the claimant expressed frustration and anger about "the final assessment" which stated "the injury was just a sprain" and he feels "the Police have one". The claimant was persisting with thoughts of harm to others "police in NSW who hit him and perceive have lied and covered up the accident";

(h) on 21 November the claimant again reported frustration and anger but now with this solicitor concerning the CCTV camera footage. He "feels he is not being told the truth, being let down by all parties including his solicitor." The claimant "reports over 60% of his day and night spends thinking about this";

(i) on 15 April 2025 the claimant reported ongoing pain from his injuries, significant anger and frustration about the accident and its aftermath and financial difficulties. Mr Sammon had a recent kidney test and was probably drinking too much. The claimant reported that he had threatened the Police in Sydney and that local (Queensland Police) had arrived at his home to check on him but no charged were laid. He reported financial difficulties, frustration with doctors and lawyers, isolation "no one listens or cares about his situation", memory loss and concentration. He was going to Airlie Beach with his family and a possible trip to the Philippines for a family wedding. The claimant reported "thoughts of driving car through police station window, potentially with gas bottles to cause explosion";

(j) on 18 June 2025 there were further reports of stress and anger with the police, the insurance claims process and medical assessments. He had ongoing pain, sleep issues and financial difficulties. "The client's preoccupation with the accident and its aftermath appears to be significantly impacting his daily functioning and relationships", and

(k) on 14 July 2025 the claimant was angry and frustrated and at this time was dissatisfied with his current GP and did not trust his lawyer and he was "planning to see a new back specialist and tell them he fell off a ladder to get an unbiased assessment" and again he was "preoccupied with perceived injustice from police and medical professionals" and expressed thoughts of violence towards police saying "I feel like I just want to attack him and bite him on the front of his throat out with my teeth."

1. Ms Croce wrote to Dr Koesmarini on 26 September 2024 providing an update noting the claimant's DASS scores were severe or extremely severe for depression, anxiety and stress and that "since receiving the Personal Injury Commission report, Glenn's mental health has diminished with increasing anger, irrational thinking, increased suicidal ideation and increased thoughts of harm to others (the police)".
2. On 2 October 2025 Ms Croce wrote to Dr Koesmarini noting that the claimant had "suspended treatment" due to financial difficulties. She said she had completed 17 sessions between November 2022 and July 2025. While she refers to him initially presenting with depression, severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms she said that later sessions focussed on "his growing feelings of anger towards the Police and vengeful thinking and planning."

1. Dr Perla and Dr Antoun provided a report to the insurer dated 24 May 2022. These doctors are from the "Medical Assist Network." Neither Dr Perla nor Dr Antoun have physically examined the claimant.
2. They were asked by QBE to provide a "doctor Support Program" and contacted the claimant's treating GP, Dr Koesmarini who advised there were no fractures or clinical signs of radiculopathy. The claimant had physiotherapy and had been a referral to an orthopaedic surgeon.
3. It was proposed by Drs Perla and Antoun that the claimant could return to administration duties and Dr Koesmarini agreed.
4. On 28 June 2022 Drs Perla and Antoun contacted Dr Koesmarini who confirmed the claimant was slowly improving and had a recent cortisone injection. Dr Koesmarini said she was comfortable with the claimant returning to eight hours a day five days a week of administrative work avoiding above shoulder or heavy lifting work.
5. A final report was provided by Drs Perla and Antoun on 29 July 2022. Dr Koesmarini said the claimant had ongoing pain in his neck, back and shoulders and his progress was slow. He had "developed some psychological issues" and Dr Koesmarini was considering referring the claimant to a psychologist. Drs Perla and Antoun expressed concern that the claimant had not recovered from his soft tissue injuries and considered that "Psych assist" should be involved.
6. The insurer relies on a report from Mr O'Neill, psychologist dated 19 April 2023. Mr O'Neill was asked by the insurer to undertake a review in respect of whether further psychological services to be provided by Ms Grove were "reasonably necessary". The Panel notes whether treatment is "reasonably necessary" is the workers compensation test not the test for motor accident-related treatment which is "reasonable and necessary in the circumstances."

Mr O'Neill says there is no psychological injury or condition present that is "directly related to the effects of the motor accident." Again, the Panel notes that this is not the test of causation posed by the motor accidents legislation which requires treatment to be "related to the injuries caused by the motor accident." There is no requirement for there to be a "direct link". 7. Mr O'Neill says, "there are issues adjusting to pain, financial hardship, other personal stressors, and anger with the Police in terms of what happened to him." 8. Mr O'Neill reviewed documents and did not examine or interview the claimant. 9. Mr O'Neill did interview Ms Grove who had made an Allied Health Request (AHRR) with the insurer but was now proceeding under the Medical Mental Health Treatment Plan. She notes the claimant's mother had died in 2023 and his best friend had died unexpectedly later in 2023. She was aware the claimant was pursing legal action against the police. 10. Ms Grove is reported to have said "he does not have a psychological condition as a result of these circumstances" but expressed concern that over time he may develop depressive symptoms. 11. The claimant saw Dr Dixon, orthopaedic surgeon at the request of his solicitors on

31 August 2023 and a report was written dated 6 September 2023. Dr Dixon had a report of the accident with injuries to the neck, shoulders, upper and lower back as well as the knees, chest, feet and elbow. He also has a report of no loss of consciousness or head injury. 12. Dr Dixon documents the claimant's treatment, the progression of his symptoms and his current treatment, Dr Dixon did not have a history of the previous left shoulder injury. 13. After reviewing the imaging studies and conducting an examination, Dr Dixon diagnosed:

(a) neck strain with dysmetria;

(b) disruption of the AC joints;

(c) elbow injury resolved;

(d) thoracic back strain without dysmetria and with three disc bulges;

(e) low back strain injury with lumbar stiffness and disc bulges, and

(f) contusion to the right ankle and foot.

1. Dr Dixon also diagnosed a post-traumatic stress disorder and suggested the claimant have ongoing treatment for that. With respect, Dr Dixon is an orthopaedic surgeon and not qualified to express a view on a mental health condition or the treatment for it.
2. Dr Dixon does not indicate whether any of the injuries are threshold or non-threshold, but he does assess WPI at 12%.
3. Dr Khan, psychiatrist examined the claimant at the request of his solicitors and produced a report dated 4 March 2024. Dr Khan has a history of the claimant being hit by the police van, being spun around and hitting the police van again. Mr Sammon reported hitting the wall of a building but denied falling to the ground. Mr Sammon reported that the police officer checked on his welfare and that he thought he was OK. The claimant then said his neck, lower back, right hip and right foot became painful and he attended hospital.
4. Dr Khan says that as a result of the accident the claimant's mental state deteriorated and he experienced nightmares, flashbacks and distressing memories of the accident, physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and panic, hypervigilance, heightened startle reaction, irritability, agitation, avoidance of trauma-related reminders, low mood, social withdrawal, reduced motivation, reduced energy, reduced enjoyment in activities, reckless behaviour with escalating alcohol use, sleep disturbance, appetite disturbance, impairment attention, impaired concentration, impaired memory, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, passive suicidal ideation, loss of self-confidence, loss of self-esteem and difficulties with trust in interpersonal relationships.
5. Dr Khan has a history of the claimant seeing his GP every three weeks, having psychological counselling every three weeks and prescriptions for Duloxetine and an anti-insomnia medication the claimant could not recall the name of.
6. The claimant gave a history of previous mental health difficulties 12 years before in the context of the breakdown of his first marriage. This included a hospital admission. He said this settled in six months.
7. Before the accident Mr Sammon reported the responsible consumption of alcohol but that he is now consuming six standard drinks a few times a week. He denied taking drugs.
8. Dr Khan expressed the view the claimant had sustained a post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder all of which were "directly related" to the accident. He was of the view the claimant was incapacitated for any form of employment. He certified impairment at 22% as follows:

(a) Self care and personal hygiene class 2 impairment;

(b) Social and recreational activities class 3 impairment;

(c) Travel class 2 impairment;

(d) Social functioning class 3 impairment;

(e) Concentration persistence and pace class 3 impairment, and

(f) Adaptation class 5 impairment.

1. Medical Assessor Home determined on 29 August 2024 that the claimant's physical injuries were threshold injuries.
2. Medical Assessor Home had a history of left shoulder pain injured in a motorbike accident 25 years previously and a recurrence of this pain in 2019 from which he recovered.
3. The claimant gave a history of being struck by a police car as a pedestrian. He said that after undergoing hypnotherapy he has been able to remember a further version of events. He said he stepped out onto a road, the police car came around the corner and he was struck in his right hip area, his back extended as he fell back across the bonnet of the police car and he then struck his left shoulder and head on the passenger side of the vehicle, twisted and sprained his right handle. He says he did not fall to the ground.
4. Mr Sammon said he experienced no immediate symptoms and after the police enquired about his health, he walked on to meet his wife. He said that he developed pain in his right shoulder and right hip, but he attended a family function the next day. The claimant reported going to hospital on 3 April 2022 and had X-rays and was given analgesia. He was told he has muscular injuries. He reported the accident to the police on 4 April 2022.
5. On 9 April 2022 Mr Sammon reported that he went to his GP who took a history of back pain and diagnosed a muscular injury. On 23 April 2022 the claimant reported left shoulder pain.
6. The claimant told Medical Assessor Home he has suffered pain in both shoulders, his neck, lower back, right hip and right ankle from the day of the accident.
7. The claimant said he went to Dr Yang, orthopaedic surgeon for his back but disagreed with his opinion. He saw Dr Rhau, orthopaedic surgeon in respect of his shoulder had injections in both shoulders but had no further treatment.
8. The claimant complained of ongoing neck, back, shoulder, right hip and right ankle pain.
9. The claimant said he had not returned to work as an underground miner.
10. Medical Assessor Home noted "it is difficult to determine the mechanism of the accident as there are widely disparate accounts of the accident." Medical Assessor Home considered all of the alleged injuries and was satisfied that the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries to his neck, lower back, left and right shoulder and did consider a mild right ankle sprain was caused by the accident. He found there was no right foot injury.
11. He found all injuries were soft tissue and therefore threshold injuries.

RE-EXAMINATION FINDINGS - MEDICAL ASSESORS SINGH AND GUPTA

1. Mr Sammon attended the re-examination on 21 October 2025. He has recently turned 64 years of age.
2. The claimant was interviewed by audiovisual link. A good internet connection was established and remained throughout the re-examination. Mr Sammon was at his home in Queensland. His wife was present in the room but did not interfere with the consultation.

1. The claimant used to work as an underground fitter in the mines. Mr Sammon says he has used up his savings and since four or five weeks ago relies on his wife's income working in Coles packing shelves.
2. He denied any history of psychiatric illness except for "a long, long time ago when I divorced my wife - I was upset - don't you even fucking go there mate - try and twist my story - this is what the police have done to me - I'm sick of people twisting the story all the time".
3. He said he was well before the accident saying there has been "nothing fucking wrong with me mate [physically] before the accident, mate".
4. He says he does not use drugs. He does not smoke. He does not gamble. He would "have a few drinks to kill the pain - to be myself now... 2 or 3 beers a day - that's my sedative - my painkiller...".
5. He denied any history of problems with the law saying he had a clean record for the last 20 years. He denied any other claims history.
6. He knew of no family history of psychiatric problems. He grew up in Sydney. He is the third of four siblings. His mother has recently died while his father died "a long time ago". Both parents worked. His mother worked as a cleaner and in sewing factories while his father was a boiler attendant and mechanic.
7. Growing up was "OK - pretty good - we had a holiday house - all the toys I wanted - a lot of friends... we lived not far from the beach...". He completed year 10 and then completed an apprenticeship as a fitter machinist and has worked in this field all his life as well as in construction, on gas lines, offshore, and the like. His last job had been in the mines - he had been with his employer "just on five years before the accident".
8. He married for the first time when he was 26 years old and remained married for over 20 years. He has five children. He has a house where his ex-wife lives with three of his children. He said his wife and the children are paying it off. He would have to sell the house if he wanted to access the pension, "so I have to kick my kids out of the fucking house, so I have money to live off - it's a goddamn disgrace".
9. He has been seven years with his second wife. They first met online and then he went to the Philippines to marry her.
10. He used to work 12-hour shifts before the accident but also spent time with his children going for drives and the like. He said he used to practice martial arts to help him stay fit.

1. On the day in question, he was on his way back from the post office and was crossing a lane. He saw a van in the distance which "was travelling pretty fast" and turned into the lane. He had stepped onto the roadway. The van was "speeding" and took "seven or eight metres to stop after it hit me". He said:

"I took a good impact - I didn't know what happened... I was in shock... I got bounced up the wall against the building ... I was standing there thinking why isn't anyone getting out of the van ... I walked up to the van and looked into the back window of the van ... I staggered up to the back window - I saw two people talking to each other - I'm thinking - why the fuck aren't they getting out - a lady police officer opened the door and asked me if I was all right ... I said yes... they took off and they did a hit and run on me - they took off on me - I was hit on the passenger side of the car - I threw myself across the front of the van... I have photos of the van - there's damage to the van from the back of my fucking head ... the police are fucking liars ..."

1. He sustained a range of physical injuries including injuries to the shoulder joint.

History of symptoms and treatment following the motor accident

"I can't sleep at night [because I am] in pain every bloody night - I'm in foot pain - neck pain - I had to get a different pillow - I had to get a new bed - I'm in pain all the time ... I can't think properly ... I sit there thinking about things that are going through my mind - fucking financial problems - all because the police lied."

1. He has mood swings and shouts at this wife and children. He has had to sell his furniture and everything he owned saying, "How would you feel if the police lied and did this to you"?
2. He admits to being depressed again saying, "How would you feel if the police did this to you...". He reported thoughts of suicide but no actual plan.
3. He said that "Six police come here a few weeks ago because I said I was going to blow up the fucking police station [in Sydney] because they lied...".
4. He continued in this manner and complained that his story kept being twisted and he is "fucking sick of it" saying, "The police didn't get out of the car - they didn't check on me - they fucking lied and they know it".
5. He said the police claimed to have no knowledge of any incident.
6. He went to Northern Beaches Hospital and was told there was nothing wrong with him and was told he was lying when he said he was hit by a police car, "because she thought I was trying to get compensation".
7. He was adamant that the police lied about travelling at 10kmph when in fact they were travelling at 50 to 60kmph.
8. He continued to talk angrily about being told he had soft tissues injuries only and that his problems were "just degenerate". He said everyone has lied and is siding with the insurer.
9. He is not on any psychotropic medication, that is medication for his mental health. He had been on "lots of different tablets - it didn't work - I don't have the fucking money to afford medication - waste of fucking money, mate".
10. Mr Sammon then told us that he takes Panadeine Forte for his pain and might take one or two tablets a day and sometimes none. He tries not to take too many saying he has bad kidneys now and partially deflated lungs which he also blames on the accident "and that was because of my age and pneumonia they said - pneumonia has nothing to do with it - it was the impact [of the accident] on the lung".

Details of any relevant injuries or conditions sustained since the motor accident

1. Mr Sammon denied and further incidents, accidents, injuries or conditions since the March 2022 accident.

1. Mr Sammon reported symptoms of depression, he complained of (and demonstrated) anger, and irritability since the accident. He reports insomnia, poor concentration, social withdrawal, poor appetite primarily caused by pain in multiple parts of his body that he says were injured in the accident.
2. He is not having any treatment nor is anything currently proposed. Mr Sammon made it clear that he could not afford treatment.

1. Mr Sammon presented as a gaunt looking bespectacled man with a grey goatee beard and moustache. He was at times unco-operative saying querulously, "What's this got to do with the accident... Don't try to pin this on the past". He accused us of siding with the police and the insurer and not believing him. We had to remind Mr Sammon on several occasion we were independent of the insurer, and he needed to engage with us in a civil manner and co-operate with the process.
2. Mr Sammon provided the history documented above. He was very much preoccupied with chronic pain and physical disabilities as well as his profound distrust of, and anger towards the police and the numerous doctors who have seen him perceiving them as siding with the insurer and the police. At various points in the interview, he wanted to present evidence that the police had lied and looked for photographs and statements on his phone. At one point, he wanted to play a recording of a consultation he had had with an orthopaedic surgeon who had apparently told there was nothing wrong with him. He summed up his predicament at various times saying, "The police have taken my life away from me...".
3. His mood was dysphoric and his affect, was permeated with anger while his demeanour over the course of the assessment was distrustful. However, in our clinical opinion there was no evidence of psychosis which emerged during the course of the assessment and similarly, there was no evidence of cognitive impairment.

1. Mr Sammon says he spends all day lying in bed. He "can't think properly - I'm angry - I can't get motivated - I'm losing my house...". He has had to put his home on the market because he cannot afford the mortgage because he can no longer work. He then said he lives in another house which he is paying off and he has not been able to access social security because he has too many assets.
2. He has a chair in his bathroom "because I can't wash my fucking feet and I have trouble putting my pants on because my body hurts too much". He showers every night because his wife is onto him about being clean. His wife does most of the cooking and cleaning, but he would take his kids to school. His appetite is poor, and he would eat one meal a day plus snacks. He said he does try to help around the yard with cleaning and mowing and other bits and pieces.
3. He does not go out socially saying, "I have no fucking friends here - I had one or two friends - I don't see them anymore - they're busy working".
4. His relationship with his wife is under strain because of his irritability. There has been "no violence yet". He feels like he wants to be violent "towards the people that have done things to me, and you'd feel the same way... if I inflicted the pain on you, wouldn't you want to inflict pain on me".
5. He drives his children to school. He has two children aged 4 and 11 living with him and his wife. He is the father of the younger child, and the older child is his wife's child from an earlier relationship. He might take them up the shops "but there's nothing much to do - it's a mining town - I'm stuck in a fucking mining town with no job - my wife wants to move - how do I tell her that we don't have the money".
6. Mr Sammon says he cannot drive for more than two hours because of his pain and discomfort.
7. He reports that his concentration is:

"Shit - I'm so angry about everything all the time - my wife sends me to the shops to get something for her and I have to ring her and ask what she wanted - I'm forgetful because I'm so messed up."

1. He blames his poor concentration on his injuries and lack of sleep. He does not sleep well, waking constantly because he is uncomfortable and his body aches.
2. Mr Sammon says he has not been working because he is in too much pain and "I can't concentrate properly". He has been told he cannot work in the mines. He has not tried any other work saying no one would employ him with his injuries. He has never been "someone sitting behind a desk pushing a pen - I can't even use a fucking computer mate... am I going to learn how to use a computer now?"

1. We noted the varying descriptions of the accident throughout the documentation and varying reports about injuries and symptoms. Further exploration of these issues with the claimant was impossible because of his anger and agitation and his perception of the assessment process as adversarial to him.

1. The Medical Assessors considered the diagnosis of adjustment disorder made by Medical Assessor Singh over a year ago. The claimant's current symptoms and overall presentation at the re-examination were too severe and pervasive to warrant this diagnosis.
2. There is a significant controversy between the claimant and QBE about some of the circumstances of the accident and its aftermath. As a result, there is great difficulty determining whether the accident is severe enough to satisfy a Criterion A "severe motor accident" event as required in the DSM-5-TR to establish a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Medical Assessors are not satisfied in their clinical judgment and on the claimant's current presentation that the claimant has a post-traumatic stress disorder as diagnosed by Dr Khan.
3. Dr Khan had also diagnosed an alcohol use disorder. The Medical Assessors noted the claimant's report of alcohol consumption which he used as a "pain killer" however they found it difficult to establish his pre-accident consumption and in the absence of this considered it unsafe to make such a diagnosis following the re-examination.
4. The Medical Assessors considered Dr Khan's third diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. On balance, the Medical Assessors were of the view that his presentation was consistent with a diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia).
5. In terms of the DSM-5-TR criteria, the Medical Assessors note:

(a) there is evidence from the claimant of a depressed mood for most the day for more days than not over the last two years (Criterion A);

(b) the claimant presented evidence of poor appetite (one meal a day), low energy (remained in bed), insomnia (pain related), and poor concentration (Criterion B);

(c) according to Mr Sammon, he had never been without the symptoms for any significant period (Criterion C);

(d) he had in the past attracted diagnoses of major depressive disorder (Dr Khan), but it was not clear whether he met criteria for this condition which in any case is not essential for the diagnosis (Criterion D);

(e) there has not been any manic, hypomanic, or cyclothymic presentation (Criterion E);

(f) there was no evidence of a schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, delusional disorder, or other specified or unspecified schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorder (Criterion F). We carefully considered this in the light of the claimant's significant reaction to what he says are the actions of the police and the insurer, but are not satisfied that this amounts to a psychosis;

(g) his symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or to another medical condition (Criterion G) but are a reaction to the accident itself and the physical injuries caused by in the accident, and

(h) the symptoms cause him clinically significant distress and psychosocial impairment manifest in his poor concentration, the strain on his marriage generated by his irritability, his poor appetite, and his inability to enjoy activities he had once liked (Criterion H).

1. Because of the prominence of pain and the extent to which it is now dominating his life, the Medical Assessors also considered a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain. However, there was no clear evidence that his concerns with his pain were disproportionate or excessive or that he devoted a disproportionate amount of time to dealing with these concerns. The claimant was more concerned with the accident event and in particular the role of the police and their alleged subsequent actions and the actions of the insurer.

1. The two-fold test of causation in part 6 of the Motor Accident Guidelines in relation to impairment has been held to apply in relation to disputes about threshold injury (see Briggs v IAG Limited t/a NRMA Insurance[22]). This requires:

(a) consideration of whether the accident could have been caused (or materially contributed to) the injury (a medical judgment), and

(b) determination of whether the accident did in fact cause (or materially contribute to) the injury.

1. The Panel is of the view that the general circumstances of this particular accident are clear. The claimant was a pedestrian crossing a laneway and there was a collision with a police vehicle. While the claimant may not have experienced immediate injury or appreciated the extent of his injuries due to shock, he felt pain and other symptoms and attended hospital within a few days. According to the claimant's history his pain has continued without remission since then. It is the clinical judgment of the Medical Assessors that those circumstances could cause or materially contribute to the development of a psychological disorder.
2. In terms of whether Mr Sammon's diagnosed persistent depressive disorder was in fact caused or materially contributed to by the accident, the Panel is of the view that this disorder was caused by the accident. The Panel notes that from 28 June 2022 Ms Stranks reported the emergence of psychological symptoms in particular anxiety and Ms Croce from November 2022 also reported the development of further symptoms. There is a clear temporal connection.
3. While Medical Assessor Home found the claimant had sustained threshold physical injuries, he did not find that the claimant was not injured in the accident. Medical Assessor Home was satisfied as to causation of the claimant's physical injuries. The claimant's accident caused physical injuries, and these physical injuries have caused pain. While pain contributed to the emergence of the disorder, the claimant's overarching concern for the last year or more had been the perceived injustice to him perpetrated by police whom he perceived as having lied and medical practitioners whom he perceived as having colluded with the police and the insurer.
4. It is clear to the Panel that the accident and its consequences have played a considerable role in triggering and maintaining the claimant's current mood disturbance. Moreover, he has contended with other stresses such as financial hardship which are related to his inability to work because of his alleged physical injuries caused by the accident.
5. It is therefore the decision of this Panel that Mr Sammon's persistent depressive disorder was caused by the motor vehicle accident.

CONCLUSION - IS THE CLAIMANT'S INJURY A THRESHOLD INJURY?

1. Persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) is a recognised psychiatric condition described in DSM-5-TR it is therefore not a threshold injury in accordance with s 1.6(1)(b).
2. Persistent depressive disorder is not an adjustment disorder or an acute stress disorder and is therefore not taken to be a threshold injury by operation of Regulation 4(2).
3. As the Panel is satisfied the claimant has a non-threshold psychiatric disorder the Panel has come to a different conclusion to Medical Assessor Singh. It therefore follows that his certificate must be revoked, and a fresh certificate issued.

[1] At the time of Mr Sammon's accident the term "minor injury" was in place. The legislative amendments that came into force on 1 April 2023 changed the benefits available only for accidents on or after that date but changed the terminology of "minor" to "threshold" for all claims regardless of the date.

[2] The current version of the Guidelines is version 10.1.

[3] Schedule2, clause 2(e) in the MAI Act.

[4] Sections 7.20, 7.24 and 7.26 of the MAI Act.

[5] See Lynch v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2022] NSWPICMP 6.

[6] See Todev v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2023] NSWSC 836 and AAI Limited t/as GIO v Hoblos [2023] NSWPICMP 210.

[7] The numbers in square brackets are a reference to the section number in the Medical Assessor's reasons.

[8] The numbers in square brackets are a reference to the paragraph number in the submissions dated

[11] Page 30 of the claimant's bundle. As it includes details of the police report it would appear it was written on or after 4 April 2022.

[12] Pages 34 and 35 of the claimant's bundle.

[18] Page 155 of the claimant's bundle.

[20] The invoice related to this service is found at page 150 of the claimant's bundle.

[21] Page 190 of the claimant's bundle.

[22] [2022] NSWSC 372 at [35].