CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER  	
	
Citation:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Singh [2024] NSWPIC 313	
		
Claimant:	Manjula Singh	
		
insurer:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited	
		
Member:	Hugh Macken	
		
DATE OF DECISION:	17 June 2024	
		
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Settlement approval; whole person impairment; assessment of non-economic loss; psychological injury; past economic loss; future economic loss; vicissitudes; Held – settlement approved.
	
determinations made:	CERTIFICATE
SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
Issued under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
The amount of the claim for damages is approved in the total amount of $455,000.00	

STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
1.	Manjula Singh (the claimant) is a 67 year old woman who was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20 July 2022. She was a passenger in a vehicle which collided with a truck which was spun around and sustained numerous collisions with the insured’s vehicle. Breach of duty of care was admitted on the part of the insured driver. The insurer conceded, consequent on the report of Dr Anad dated 26 June 2024, that the claimant’s injuries exceeded 10% whole person impairment and accordingly the claimant is entitled to an assessment of non-economic loss. This report diagnosed a post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder consequent on the subject motor vehicle accident.
2.	The approved settlement figure is $455,000.00. It is noted that the insurer has made payments of $58,942.59 which will be deducted from the settlement figure leaving a figure of $396,057.41 payable to the claimant.
Documents considered
3.	All documents including submissions, clinical notes, hospital notes, rehabilitation reports and medico-legal reports were considered in respect to this matter. The claimant had some concerns in respect to the report of Dr Christopher Harrington dated 20 February 2024 although I note this report identified a 10% whole person impairment consequent on physical injuries primarily as a result of the injuries the claimant sustained to her right shoulder.
4.	The matter of the subject of a lengthy settlement conference and extensive discussions with the claimant both in respect to the non-economic loss and calculation to future economic loss as well as concerns the claimant has in respect to ongoing treatment. The claimant has been advised that these are not matters which can be subject of a common law settlement that any treatment disputes will need to be the subject of internal reviews for the insurer, and if required, applications to the personal injury commission to resolve any future treatment disputes. The claimant, clearly an intelligent woman, indicated that she had a good understanding of this although it was an ongoing source of concern for her. 
Injuries sustained
5.	The Claimant was a woman in very good health prior to the accident. She sustained significant physical injuries and, more tellingly, has suffered a significant psychological impact consequent on the accident. 
6.	The claimant was in full time employment at Westpac at the time of the accident. She was working nights in respect of back-office administration for Westpac and was in receipt of a salary in the order of $106,531.00 per annum. She had been employed with Westpac for most of her working life. She had moved from Fiji to Australia in about 1987 but still retained her employment with Westpac. 
7.	Since the accident the claimant has attempted to return to work. And indeed she had increased her hours to about 6.5 hours per day prior to her relapsing. She again attempted a return to work but suffered a further relapse in November 2023 and has not worked since. She is still technically employed by Westpac although she anticipates that she will shortly need to resign as she is unable to return to her employment.
8.	It ought to be said that the claimant is a woman of great strength and stoicism who has shown courage in dealing with what can reasonably be described as very significant and disabling physical and psychological injuries. 
9.	As I advised at the settlement conference, I have no hesitation in approving this settlement as it quite fully and comprehensively makes allowance for all likely loss of earning suffered by the claimant and an appropriate allowance for non-economic loss.
Reasons
10.	The parties have agreed on a figure of non-economic loss of $265,000.00. In my view this is an appropriate allowance for non-economic loss noting that any such assessments are, at best, a most inexact science. 
11.	She had previously been an active woman who was active in her local church and sung in the choir. These things are now beyond her capacity. She is at times tearful and clearly suffers ongoing and significant anxiety both in respect to Post Traumatic stress disorder and diagnosis of a major depressive disorder as well as the physical restrictions occasioned by the injuries sustained in the accident.
12.	Settlement makes an allowance of $70,000.00 for past economic loss. This is clearly an appropriate figure noting that the payments made by the insurer and the tax paid on the past wage loss and taking account of all the time off work. After a detailed analysis of the calculations, and noting the agreement of the claimant, the amount has actually been rounded up to $70,000.00 which is in excess of the allowance which ought to be made for the net weekly loss, allowance for fox of the wood payments (tax payments made by the insurer) and a further allowance of the loss of employer’s superannuation and contribution.
13.	The point of contention which the claimant did express some reservations about is the calculation of future economic loss of $120,000.00. Noting the claimant is 67 years of age this is an allowance of a little over 18 months a future economic loss at the full rate without a discount. Whilst the claimant did express at the settlement conference an intention to work to age 70 had she not been injured she still requested the matter be approved not withstanding any reservations she may have about this calculation.
14.	I do not consider the figure of $120,000.00 to be in any way under compensation. Were an allowance to be made of age 70, or close to it, such an allowance would need to be considerably reduced for vicissitudes, would need to be supported by material or statements of comparable workers who are still working with her employer and are in their 70th year or older. Whilst it is possible this could be accepted there is a significant risk, should the matter go to an assessment or hearing, that such an allowance would not be considered reasonable in all the circumstances.
15.	The calculation of future economic loss, particularly when it is made by way of a buffer, does necessitate some compromise and, in my view, the allowance made by the insurer in respect of future economic loss is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances the claimant noting that she remains employed, and may yet hold some residual earning capacity in any event. 
16.	Noting all the material in respect to this matter, and after a lengthy discussion with the claimant in respect to all aspects of the accepted offer, I have no hesitation in approving this settlement. I note that both the claimant, after discussions with her husband, did request that the settlement approval be confirmed and accordingly I approve the settlement.
Legislation
In making my decision I have considered the following legislation and guidelines:
•	Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, s6.23 (3), and 
•	Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017, s7.37