CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER  	

Citation:	 
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Haider [2022] NSWPIC 465	
		
Claimant:	Fateh Haidar	
		
insurer:	Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance	
		
Member:	Susan McTegg	
		
DATE OF DECISION:	22 August 2022	
		
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS -  Settlement approval; motor vehicle accident; neck; right shoulder; left leg; post-traumatic stress disorder; economic loss; approval of settlement; section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017; motor vehicle accident; liability admitted; injury to neck and right shoulder; laceration to left leg; post-traumatic stress disorder; work as an Uber driver; moved to Australian Capital Territory post-accident; less traffic; anxiety when driving; past and future economic loss; costs of former lawyer subject of equitable lien;  Held — settlement approved in the sum of $220,000; settlement within the range of likely potential damages assessment.  	
determinations made:	Issued under section 6.23 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017

1.	This proposed settlement is approved.
2.	The proposed settlement is approved under s 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act). 
3.	The proposed settlement complies with s 7.37 of the Motor Accident Guidelines. 

REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1.	On 17 September 2019 Mr Fateh Haidar (the claimant) was driving on Canterbury Road, Punchbowl. As he approached the intersection of Moxon Road, he had a green light in his favour. Mr Haidar entered the intersection when the at fault vehicle suddenly made a right hand turn across his path colliding with the front right of his vehicle. 
2.	Mr Haidar was conveyed by ambulance to Bankstown Hospital. He sustained an injury to his neck, to his head, to his right shoulder and to the left leg. He also developed a psychological injury, namely, post-traumatic stress disorder. 
3.	The claimant has made a common law claim against Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance (the insurer), the insurer of the at fault vehicle, for lump sum damages. 
4.	The insurer has accepted liability for the claimant’s common law claim for damages and has accepted that the claimant had non-minor injuries. 
5.	The claimant has not been able to establish that he has a whole person impairment (WPI) greater than 10% and accordingly is not entitled to recover damages for non-economic loss.
6.	The claimant and the insurer have agreed to settle the claim for lump sum damages for the sum of $220,000. The insurer to have credit for statutory weekly benefits of $13,796.27 and the sum of $23,105.17 is payable to Lionheart Lawyers for costs and disbursements. The claimant will receive the sum of $183,098.56.
7.	The offer of $220,000 is calculated as follows: 
•	Past economic loss				$46,000
•	Future economic loss				$149,872.83
•	Tax on weekly payments			$1,022
•	Costs and disbursements			$23,105.71
8.	Because the claimant is not represented by a lawyer, his settlement must be approved in accordance with the MAI Act. I am required to be satisfied the settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claim
9.	The insurer lodged the application for approval of the settlement, and it was referred to me for consideration. I held a teleconference on 15 August 2022. Mr Haidar participated in person and the insurer was represented by Ms Molly Covell and Mr Kent Owen of Sparke Helmore Lawyers. 
10.	A subsequent teleconference was held on 22 August 2022 when Mr Haidar again participated in person and the insurer was represented by Ms Molly Covell. 
JURISDICTION
11.	The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) was established on 1 March 2021 and the Dispute Resolution Service was abolished by clause 3 of Part 2, Division 2, Schedule 1 to the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020. 
12.	I am a Member of the Motor Accidents Division of the Commission. Clause 14A (1) of the Personal Injury Commission Regulation 2020 designates the application “pre-establishment proceedings” and clause 14D empowers me to determine those proceedings. 
13.	Because of the date of the accident clause 14D(3)(b) provides that the MAI Act and the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines) continue to apply.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
14.	In considering this application for approval I reviewed the following documents:
•	Police Report Event Ref No. E71683170;
•	Application for Personal Injury Benefits dated 23 September 2019; 
•	Application for Common Law Damages dated 21 May 2021;
•	Liability Notice dated 16 July 2021; 
•	Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital emergency department (ED) discharge report dated 17 September 2019 
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 24 September 2019:
•	cervical spine X-ray, right shoulder X-ray and ultrasound left lower leg dated 26 September 2019; 
•	general practitioner (GP) mental health treatment plan dated 30 September 2019;
•	K10 assessment dated 30 September 2019;
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 29 October 2019; 
•	Allied Health recovery request dated 4 November 2019;
•	NSW Ambulance Service medical record dated 8 November 2019;
•	initial assessment report of Mohammad Sabbagh dated 9 November 2019; 
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 25 November 2019; 
•	Allied Health recovery request dated 4 December 2019;
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 30 December 2019; 
•	progress report of Mohammad Sabbagh dated 2 January 2020; 
•	Allied Health recovery request dated 16 January 2020; 
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 23 January 2020; 
•	progress report of Mohammad Sabbagh dated 10 February 2020; 
•	Allied Health recovery request dated 20 February 2020; 
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 25 February 2020; 
•	report of Kasim Abaie dated 2 March 2020; 
•	discharge report of Mohammad Sabbagh dated 19 March 2020:
•	Certificate of Capacity dated 20 March 2020;
•	referral to Dr Rajneesh Singh dated 20 March 2020; 
•	report of Dr Rajneesh Singh dated 7 June 2021;
•	clinical records from Liverpool Doctors as of 16 July 2021;
•	certificate of Assessor Alan Home dated 9 February 2021; 
•	certificate of Assessor Michael McGlynn dated 2 March 2021;
•	certificate of Assessor Enrico Parmegiani dated 9 April 2021:
•	report of Dr Sandra McBurnie dated 30 July 2021;
•	report of Dr Leon Leu dated 22 August 2021;
•	report of Dr Christopher Canaris dated 21 September 2021; 
•	reports of Dr Aman Suman dated 18 October 2021 (x 2);
•	report of Dr Aman Suman dated 30 November 2021;
•	report of Dr Aman Suman dated 13 December 2021;
•	Notice of Assessment for the year ended 30 June 2018;
•	2019 taxation return; 
•	Notice of Assessment for the year ended 30 June 2019;
•	UBER tax summaries for the period 2018/9, 2018/10, 2018/11, 2018/12, 2019/1, 2019/2, 2019/3, 2019/4, 2019/5, 2019/6, 2019/7, 2019/8, 2019/9;
•	Australian Taxation Office activity statements (x 15); 
•	report of Matthew Gwynne of PKF (NS) Forensic Accountants Pty Ltd dated 16 December 2019; 
•	letter from the insurer dated 17 December 2021 advising it had been determined the claimant had not sustained a WPI greater than 10% and had no entitlement to non-economic loss;
•	letter and Certificate of Determination – Internal Review from the insurer dated 3 February 2022 affirming the decision as to WPI;
•	Notice of Equitable Lien issued by Lionheart Lawyers dated 14 January 2022; 
•	email from Lionheart Lawyers dated 3 June 2022;
•	letter from the insurer dated 24 June 2022 conveying an offer of settlement in the sum of $220,000, and
•	email from the claimant to the insurer dated 24 June 2022 accepting the offer of settlement.
THE RELEVANT LAW
15.	Section 6.23(1) of the MAI Act provides a claim for damages cannot be settled within two years after the accident unless the degree of permanent impairment of the injured person caused by the accident is greater than 10%.
16.	Section 6.23(2) and (3) of the MAI Act requires approval of the settlement and I am not to approve the settlement unless I am satisfied it complies with any of the requirements of the MAI Act or the Guidelines. 
17.	Clause 7.37 of the Guidelines states I must be satisfied as to the following:
“(a)	the proposed settlement satisfies the timing requirements in s 6.23(1) of the MAI Act;
(b)	the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments for the claim were the matter to be assessed by a claims assessor, taking into account the nature and extent of the claim and the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claimant, and taking into account any proposed reductions or deductions in the proposed settlement; and
(c)	the claimant understands the nature and effect of the proposed settlement and is willing to accept the proposed settlement.” 
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
18.	The claimant is now 45 years of age and was 41 years of age at the time of the accident. 
19.	The claimant migrated from Syria where he completed his education, graduating in economics from a university in Damascus and later gaining recognition from the University of Adelaide. In Syria he worked in accounting, finance and auditing. He came as a refugee through Indonesia in 2013. In Australia he unsuccessfully applied for jobs in the taxation and GST assessment fields. 
20.	The claimant had no relevant pre-existing conditions. At the time of the accident, he was working as a self-employed Uber driver.
21.	In February 2020 the claimant moved from Sydney to Canberra because he found Sydney too busy, and he felt stressed and scared. He has continued to work as an Uber driving in Canberra.
22.	Mr Haidar was represented by Lionheart Lawyers until 12 January 2022 when he terminated their services. Lionheart Lawyers serve a Notice of Equitable Lien dated 14 January 2022 on Sparke Helmore in respect of their costs and disbursement. In an email dated 3 June 2022 Lionheart Lawyers advised they maintained a lien for costs and disbursements totalling $23,105.17. 
Medical evidence
23.	Following the accident Bankstown Hospital recorded complaints of cervical spine tenderness, and an abrasion with swelling to the left shin. 
Liverpool Doctors
24.	Mr Haidar consulted Dr Kalid on 24 September 2019 when he provided a history of the accident and reported neck pain, numbness of the head, right shoulder pain and left leg pain and abrasion. He referred Mr Haidar for an X-ray. 
25.	Mr Haidar underwent investigations on 26 September 2019. An X-ray of the cervical spine, the left lower leg and the right shoulder did not demonstrate any abnormality. An ultrasound of the right shoulder was said to demonstrate minor supraspinatus tendinopathy, no rotator cuff tear and multiple subacromial bursitis. 
26.	On 30 September 2019 Dr Kalid diagnosed depression and recorded the following history:
“recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections
recurrent distressing dreams of the event
feeling as if the event were recurring
intense distress on exposure to resembling events.”
27.	Mr Haidar continued to consult Dr Kalid and on 20 March 2020 Dr Kalid referred Mr Haidar to Dr Rajneesh Singh, psychiatrist. 
28.	On 9 June 2020 Mr Haidar underwent a CT scan of the lumbar spine. It was reportedly a normal study.
29.	On 10 November 2020 Dr Kalid reported Mr Haidar presented as quite settled, he continued to live out of Canberra and found the laid-back and slowness of the day-to-day life there had helped him recuperate from his mental health conditions. However, he still had depressed mood, insomnia, fatigue or loss of energy and feelings of worthlessness or excessive guilt. 
30.	On 21 December 2021 Dr Shaghi reported a flare up of shoulder pain for which Mr Haider was taking Crysanal. 
Physio Goals
31.	Mr Haidar commenced physiotherapy on 4 November 2019 for his cervical spine, right shoulder and left shin. 
32.	A report of 19 November 2019 documents complaints of neck pain, paraesthesia in the right more than the left arm and restricted range of active cervical spine motion, right shoulder pain with restricted motion and grade 4 weakness.
33.	In a report dated 19 March 2020 Mohammad Sabbagh, physiotherapist reported Mr Haidar was still complaining of pain in the cervical spine, bilateral shoulders, right pectoralis and left shin. He also stated Mr Haidar reported high levels of stress and anxiety while driving since the accident. He discharged Mr Haidar from physiotherapy due to moving cities. 
Report of Mr Kasim Abaie, 2 March 2020
34.	Mr Haidar received treatment from Mr Abaie, psychologist. He reported Mr Haidar was working full time as an Uber driver at the time of the accident. Mr Abaie administered psychometric tests.
35.	He reported Mr Haidar was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with insomnia and required psychotherapy and counselling. He reported Mr Haidar had undergone cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), exposure therapy, problem-solving and anger management treatment. 
Report of Dr Rajneesh Singh, 7 June 2021
36.	Dr Singh is the claimant’s treating psychiatrist. Mr Haider consulted him on 7 June 2021. Dr Singh recommended an increase in medication, namely both the Fluoxetine and the Prozasin and ongoing psychological interventions using CBT techniques.
37.	He reported: 
“Fateh presents quite pleasant and engaging, though continues to have intermittent episodes of increased burst of anxiety related to his now longstanding history of nightmares and flashbacks from the accident. Fateh reports a recent marked exacerbation in his symptoms of PTSD about three weeks ago when he saw a car accident while driving his own car. Fateh reports somehow managing to work a few hours on an intermittent basis, though certainly tends to get quite exhausted quite easily along with increased panic symptoms even at the trivial triggers. Nevertheless, Fateh reports being on medication having helped him in coping much better than before and is quite keen to continue the same.”
38.	On 3 December 2021 Mr Haidar was reviewed by Dr Singh. He reported some improvement due to but noted that Mr Haidar sill found himself unable to work for substantial hours as a taxi driver, reporting that he can usually work only up to a couple of hours a day “as he continues to have ongoing symptoms of feeling nervous and impatient at time while being behind the wheels”. Dr Singh also reported:
“Mr Haidar further reports having tried his hands at other employment options including painting and security guard but does not feel capable of putting in the long hours throughout the day that many of these job options demand”.
39.	However, Dr Singh also reported Mr Haidar was quite future-oriented and hopes to make further recovery. 
Report of Dr Sandra McBurnie, 30 July 2021
40.	Dr McBurnie, an occupational physician provided a report dated 30 July 2021.She assessed the claimant by video conference. 
41.	Dr McBurnie reported the claimant was working as an Uber driver at the time of the accident 40 hours per week. He had been working as an Uber driver since 2016 and prior to that undertook casual work including in construction, farming and painting. He had also started a business importing products to sell but had not made any income from that business. 
42.	She reported following the accident the claimant was off work for one to two months before returning to Uber driving. He found the seatbelt caused pain around his right shoulder and he was stressed from driving so he reduced his hours to 17 to 20 a week although by the time of the assessment he was working between 20 and 30 hours a week. He found his right arm symptoms prevented him from undertaking alternative work as a painter.
43.	Dr McBurnie reported at the time of the accident he was sharing a house with two housemates, and they helped for a short time with shopping. He returned to his normal activities of daily living after about a month. Mr Haidar moved to Canberra from Sydney in March 2020.                                    
44.	Dr McBurnie reported when driving the claimant’s heart races, he worries he will have an accident and he becomes anxious and stressed. He also suffers from a headache every day and intermittent pain at the front of his right shoulder experienced most days. Mr Haidar also reported a tender patch around the left shin on the inside and front of his leg with mild altered sensation. His sleep is disturbed, and he finds he needs to rest two or three times during the day. Mr Haidar reported his main ongoing issue was mental and related to motivation and lack of interest. 
45.	Dr McBurnie reported Mr Haidar was taking anti-inflammatory medication and Panadol as well as Lovan and Fluoxetine for his psychological symptoms. She noted the claimant’s mental health issues were outside her area of expertise. 
46.	Dr McBurnie diagnosed the following injuries from the accident;
•	soft tissue cervical spine injury without radiculopathy;
•	soft tissue injury to the right shoulder- bursitis and supraspinatus tendinopathy, and
•	abrasions and laceration to the left shin.
47.	She concluded from a physical perspective Mr Haidar was fit to work as an Uber driver up to 30 hours a week. Dr McBurnie also concluded the upper limb pain was likely to restrict his capacity for heavy work. She found his neck has settled and he only had mild discomfort with full range of movement. Dr McBurnie assessed a 0% WPI. 
Report of Dr Leon Leu, 22 August 2021
48.	Mr Haidar was assessed by Dr Leu, occupational physician at the request of his then lawyer, on 11 August 2021. Dr Leu reported before the accident the claimant was driving 40 to 60 hours per week. 
49.	Dr Leu found the claimant continued to have a markedly decreased range of movement of the cervical spine with post traumatic migraine. He felt Mr Haidar would have those symptoms for at least the next two to five years and possible indefinitely. Dr Leu also reported a significant disability with the right shoulder which he felt may improve with treatment. He found the lower back injury had almost completely resolved. He also found cutaneous nerve damage affecting the medial side of the left lower leg which may or may not recover naturally. He also noted the claimant had post-traumatic stress disorder which required comment by a psychiatrist. 
50.	Dr Leu found the claimant was fit to work 20 to 24 hours per week. He made treatment recommendations which he considered may allow Mr Haider to increase his hours to full time within the next two years. 
Report of Dr Christopher Canaris, 21 September 2021
51.	Mr Haidar was assessed by Dr Canaris, psychiatrist at the request of his then lawyer on 17 September 2021. 
52.	Dr Canaris reported Mr Haidar now drives 20 to 30 hours per week whereas before the accident he had driven 40 to 60 hours. He described being various anxious when driving, and hypervigilant for danger. Mr Haidar reported his hypervigilance makes him more likely to brake abruptly or to accelerate to avoid perceived danger which has upset passengers who have reported him. He would prefer not to have passengers but had not been successful in securing courier or delivery jobs. 
53.	Dr Canaris reported:
“The accident was inherently frightening, and he is now an anxious and hypervigilant driver who has very much limited his working hours while moving from Sydney to Canberra. He is irritable and socially withdrawn. He feels depressed seeing little hope or future for himself. His sleep is fragmented although nightmares have improved since she started on prazosin. He is unmotivated spending most of his days lying in bed concentration is poor as is his self-care. At interview, his affect is depressed.”
54.	Dr Canaris diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. He considered Mr Haidar’s work capacity over the longer term was likely to be limited to 20 to 30 hours per week. He also stated the claimant’s capacity to refresh his qualifications in accounting and finance are limited by his lack of motivation and poor concentration. He provided an assessment of 18% WPI. 
Dr Aman Suman, 18 October 2021 and 30 November 2021
55.	Dr Suman, psychiatrist undertook a joint medical examination on 18 October 2021 via telehealth. He concluded Mr Haidar had the classical symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder which have had an adverse effect on his general functioning and social engagement.
56.	Dr Suman reported Mr Haidar continued to remain fragile in terms of his mental health experiencing fluctuation of triggers. He felt his could work on a part-time basis although triggers whilst driving might cause a worsening of his mental health. He described the symptoms as chronic in nature and likely to adversely affect his future work capacity. He provided an assessment of 16% WPI. 
57.	Dr Suman subsequently provided an amended report dated 30 November 2021 based on his medical assessment of 18 October 2021.
Aman Suman, 13 December 2021
58.	In his report of 13 December 2021 Dr Suman provided an amended assessment of WPI. Dr Suman revised his assessment of WPI to 8% following receipt of a letter from the insurer dated 23 November 2021. The reasons for the revision are set out in his report as follows:
“‘In your report, you stated that the claimant lives alone and could cook his own meals every 3rd or 4th day. In that regard, the claimant does not have a support network and lives alone. Furthermore, Assessor Parmegiani reported that the claimant showered and dressed daily and Dr Sandra McBurnie reported that the claimant was independent in self-care and could perform activities of daily living. In light of the above, please provide your further comments regarding which self-care and personal hygiene PIRS class the claimant appropriately fits into.’
In my initial PIRS report dated 18th Oct 2021, I had rated Mr Haider self-care and personal hygiene abilities as moderate impairment (class 3). At the time I had provided the rating based on his ability to self-care and look after his personal hygiene as compared to his premorbid level of functioning. Considering the information highlighted in your letter, especially the specific reference to the guidelines, I am of the opinion that his presentation and functioning should be classed as mild impairment (class 2). Accordingly, I have made the changes as highlighted above. 
‘In your report, you confirmed that the claimant was working 10-20 hours per week in his pre-accident role as an Uber driver (as opposed to 60 hours per week). Furthermore, Assessor Parmegiani reported that at the time of his assessment of the claimant's injuries, the claimant was working 20-25 hours per week in his pre-accident role, and Dr McBurnie reported at the time of her assessment, the claimant was working up to 30 hours per week in his pre-accident role. In light of the above, please provide your further comments regarding which adaptation PIRS class the claimant appropriately fits into.’ 
In my previous report I have stated that Mr Haider was working 10-20 hrs. I do believe that he is struggling to work more than 20 hrs which is consistent with his presentation. Considering the details, you have highlighted in your letter especially the guidelines related to ‘pre - accident role’, I have amended the rating for adaptability to Mild impairment (class 2) which is more in line with the guidelines. Again, I have compared his current functioning to his premorbid level of functioning although as per the guidelines it should be mild impairment (class 2). I have accordingly made changes as highlighted above.”
59.	I have reviewed the evidence carefully and accept that the amended assessment of Dr Suman is a more accurate assessment than that contained in his first report, particularly in regard to the categories of self care and personal hygiene and adaption
Medical Assessor Alan Home
60.	Medical Assessor Home issued a certificate dated 9 February 2021. He found that the following injuries caused by the accident were minor injuries for the purposes of the MAI Act:
•	cervical spine – soft tissue injury, and
•	right shoulder – soft tissue injury (supraspinatus tendinopathy and subacromial bursitis).
61.	Assessor Home certified that the right leg injury was not caused by the accident. 
62.	At the time of the assessment Mr Haidar reported occasional occipital numbness but no frank neck pain. His main complaint was of anterior right shoulder pain which he described as constant pain, exacerbated by wearing a seat belt. He also reported occasional anterior left knee pain and an area of local tenderness corresponding to the area where he sustained an abrasion at the time of the accident. 
63.	Assessor Home found no abnormality on examination of the cervical spine and the thoracolumbar spine. He found no restriction of movement of the right shoulder and no evidence of right shoulder instability. Whilst Mr Haider referred to an area of local tenderness on the left shin Assessor Home found no clinical abnormality on examination of the right lower extremity. 
Medical Assessor McGlynn
64.	Medical Assessor McGlynn issued a certificate dated 2 March 2021. He found the claimant had sustained an abrasion/scarring to the left lower leg as a result of the accident. He found it was a minor injury. 
Medical Assessor Parmegiani
65.	Medical Assessor Parmegiani issued a certificate dated 9 April 2021. He reported at the time of the accident Mr Haidar was working as an Uber driving in Sydney working up to 65 hours per week. Following the accident, he reduced his hours of work to between 20 and 25 hours per week due to increased anxiety and irritability after the accident. 
66.	Mr Haidar reported after the accident he found it difficult to get out of the house for the next month due to pain. He began driving for Uber again after four months. However, he did so at night-time when he felt it was safer with less traffic on the road. He felt anxious when he saw someone come too close to him and described episodes of tachcardia and sweating. 
67.	Assessor Parmegiani reported:
“Mr Haidar consulted with a psychologist for the first time two months after the accident. He reported spontaneously symptoms of tachycardia when driving, irritability and dysphoric/unhappy mood. He also described nightmares of the accident and some intrusive memories and flashbacks. He was tense, but his startle response was not elevated. His sleep was restless, characterised by sweating, and easily interrupted.”
68.	He reported Mr Haidar moved to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in March 2020 because driving in Sydney made him too anxious and driving in Canberra was easier for him. He was managing to drive a maximum of 25 hours per week. 
69.	Assessor Parmegiani reported the claimant did not feel happy, his enjoyment of life was decreased, and he tended to ruminate on memories of the accident, such memories being triggered when driving. He felt persistently tense and afraid of being involved in further accidents. He also continued to experience flashbacks, occasional tachycardia and persistent irritability. Whilst not suicidal at times he felt life was not worth living. He suffered from insomnia and continued to experience nightmares. He missed out on meals but still ate sufficiently. He cooked and enjoyed the taste of food. He had decreased levels of energy and motivation. His libido had dropped. Assessor Parmegiani reported his affect was mildly anxious and depressed.
70.	Assessor Parmegiani diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, a non-minor injury. 
Evidence as to economic loss
Report of PKF (NS) Forensic Accountants Pty Ltd (PKF)
71.	The insurer relied upon a report dated 16 December 2019 of Matthew Gwynne. In the 52 weeks prior to the accident the claimant worked as an Uber driver operating as a sole trader. 
72.	Matthew Gwynne of PKF calculated the claimant’s income after taking into account his expenses and account charges deducted by Uber. He also estimated depreciation expenses on the claimant’s vehicle. He assessed the claimant pre-accident average weekly earnings (PAWE) as $605.01.
73.	The claimant’s Notice of Assessments disclose the following:
FINANCIAL YEAR	TAXABLE INCOME	
Year ended 30 June 2016	$18,152	
Year ended 30 June 2017	$35,572	
Year ended 30 June 2018	$20,739	
Year ended 30 June 2019	$24,846	
Year ended 30 June 2020	$17,867 including statutory benefits of $13,694	
Year ended 30 June 2021	$38,349	

74.	I was informed the initial allowance for future economic loss of $135,000 was calculated at 25% of the claimant’s net weekly wage of $550 plus 11% superannuation without any deduction for vicissitudes or application of multipliers resulting in a built-in buffer. Subsequently, the insurer increased the allowance for future economic loss to $149,872.83.
Teleconference on 15 August 2022
75.	During the teleconference Mr Haidar informed me he was working between 50 and 60 hours per week as an Uber driver before the accident. He said he had also commenced a business importing pistachio nuts and selling them to sweet shops. He said the expenses incurred in setting up and running that business were claimed as deductions in his pre-accident taxation returns. He said that business ceased after he moved to the ACT.
76.	Mr Haidar informed me he is now driving four to five hours a day, although online for six hours.
77.	Mr Haidar said he has stopped seeing Dr Singh and he is now taking steps to reduce his medication. He said he wishes to stop taking medication because it causes him difficulty with concentration, gives him daily headaches and he also has stomach pain. He has discussed the reduction in his medication with his GP, Dr Kalid.
78.	I discussed with Mr Haidar the assessment of WPI. I said I was of the view based on all the evidence that the revised assessment of Dr Suman was correct, and that the claimant did not have a whole person assessment in excess of 10%. This meant he had no entitlement to compensation for non-economic loss.
79.	Whilst the taxation return for the year ended 30 June 2022 show a taxable income of $38,349 Mr Haidar informed me approximately $20,000 of that sum was a COVID relief payment.
80.	He has completed his Income Taxation Return for the year ended 30 June 2022 but did not have a copy available.
81.	I asked Mr Haidar about his future intentions. He said he hoped to open a small business.
82.	I indicated I wished to review his pre-accident taxation returns to ensure I was satisfied as to the allowance for future economic loss.
Teleconference on 22 August 2022

83.	I discussed with Mr Haidar and Ms Covell my concern about the calculation of economic loss. Ms Covell was able to demonstrate that the figure reported for other expenses of $20,943 during the period 17 September 2018 to 17 September 2019 was based on an email from the claimant’s former lawyers, Lionheart Lawyers dated 2 December 2019 who stated that figure related to expenses incurred by Mr Haidar in earning his income as an Uber driver. 
84.	Mr Haidar conceded that the expenses taken into account by Mr Gwynne of PKF had the effect of reducing his taxable income and he understood that his economic loss was calculated by reference to his declared income. 
85.	Mr Haidar understands he will receive the sum of $183,098.56 from the settlement. He reiterated that he wished to have the settlement approved as he hoped to use the funds to start a small business so he could cease working as an Uber driver. 
86.	The insurer confirmed that after five years Mr Haidar’s right to receive payment of benefits for treatment and care will continue but will become the responsibility of the Lifetime Care and Support Authority of New South Wales.
87.	Mr Haidar informed me he has pain from time to time in his right shoulder. However, he takes medication, and the pain subsides over a few days. 
88.	He confirmed that he continues to take medication for his psychological condition from time to time.
89.	Mr Haidar informed me he had not received any Centrelink benefits. I informed him that Centrelink is likely to apply a preclusion period to his right to receive future Centrelink payments. Mr Haidar said he is not the type to apply for Centrelink benefits. He has not done so in the past and does not intend to do so in the future. 
SHOULD I APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT 
90.	Mr Haidar indicated he had previously sought legal advice, but he was not happy with the advice and had decided to proceed without legal representation. He said he wished to have the settlement approved so he could move on.
Past economic loss
91.	The allowance of $46,000 for past economic loss is well in excess of the statutory payments received by the claimant and seems a reasonable estimate of the claimant’s past loss of earnings taking into account the impact of COVID.
92.	The allowance for taxation payments of $1,022 is appropriate given that it reimburses Mr Haider for taxation payments which were deducted from his statutory weekly payments by the insurer and paid to the Australian Taxation Office. 
Future economic loss
93.	Mr Haider has a future working life of 17 years. Whilst it is clear the claimant experiences difficulty in maintaining employment as an Uber driver having regard to his post-traumatic stress disorder, I also note a significant increase in his taxable income for the year ended 30 June 2021. 
94.	I note a loss of $290 per week for the next 17 years utilising the 5% tables and applying a discount of 15% for the vicissitudes of life equates to the sum of $148,590. I am satisfied the allowance made by the insurer of $149,872.83 for future economic loss is within the range, albeit the lower end of the range Mr Haidar would be likely to receive if his claim was to proceed to assessment, having regard to his pre-injury earnings as disclosed on his income taxation returns. 
Costs and disbursements
95.	The allowance for costs and disbursements quite reasonably covers the amount sought by the claimant’s former lawyers for costs and disbursements and has been allowed in addition the damages payable to the claimant. 
GENERALLY
96.	I am satisfied that the claimant is aware of his right to have his causally related reasonable and necessary treatment expenses paid for the remainder of his life initially by the insurer and subsequently under the Lifetime Care and Support scheme. 
97.	Ms Covell confirmed that the insurer did not propose to notify Medicare of the settlement where it did not include any allowance for treatment expenses. However, she also agreed the insurer would be responsible for payment of any reasonable and necessary treatment expenses paid by Medicare and causally related to the accident as part of their obligation to pay statutory benefits in the unlikely event a charge is raised. 
98.	I am of the view that the sum of $220,000 is within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claim. 
CONCLUSION
99.	I find the timing requirements of s 6.23(1) of the MAI Act satisfied where two years have elapsed since the date of the accident.
100.	I am satisfied the proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable and within the range of likely potential damages assessments if the claim was to proceed to assessment taking into account the nature and extent of the claim, the injuries, disabilities, impairments and losses sustained by the claimant.
101.	I am satisfied the claimant is aware he can seek legal advice in respect of the settlement but does not wish to do so. 
102.	I am satisfied the claimant understands the binding nature of the settlement and that he will be precluded from making a further claim for damages arising out of the accident. I am satisfied the claimant is willing to accept the proposed settlement. 
103.	Accordingly, pursuant to s 6.23(2(b) of the MAI Act I approve the settlement of this claim for damages.