Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 Review: Is Exacerbation of Depressive Disorder a Threshold Injury and is Psychological Treatment Reasonable and Necessary?
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Minna v AAI Ltd t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMP 457, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.
Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes
Basic Information:
Court of Hearing: Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (Review Panel)
Presiding Judge: Hugh Macken (Member), Dr Michael Hong (Medical Assessor), Dr Matthew Jones (Medical Assessor)
Cause of Action: Review of Medical Assessment Certificate concerning threshold injury and the reasonableness and necessity of treatment and care for a psychological condition arising from a motor vehicle accident.
Judgment Date: 26 June 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017
Keyword 3: Threshold Injury
Keyword 4: Exacerbation of Depressive Disorder
Keyword 5: Psychological Treatment
Keyword 6: Medical Assessment Certificate Review
Background:
This matter involves a Claimant, Ms Minna, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 24 August 2020. Following an initial medical assessment, her soft tissue injuries were determined to be a threshold injury. Subsequently, a dispute arose regarding a psychiatric condition described as a chronic psychiatric condition. An initial Medical Assessor, Samson Roberts, determined that an exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder was a non-threshold injury. The Insurer, AAI Ltd t/as GIO, sought a review of this determination, leading to the convening of a Medical Review Panel to conduct a new assessment of the matters.
Core Disputes and Claims:
The central legal focus of the dispute was twofold:
1. Whether the Claimant’s exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder constituted a “threshold injury” for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
2. Whether the psychological treatment (including counselling) sought by the Claimant related to an injury caused by the motor accident and whether it was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.
Chapter 2: Origin of the Case
The Claimant, Ms Minna, a 55-year-old woman, found herself once again embroiled in the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident on 24 August 2020. She was a passenger in her daughter’s vehicle, which was struck from behind in a school zone. The impact was felt in her back and neck, accompanied by a profound sensation of shock and fear. The offending driver, after initially seeming to cooperate, became abusive and fled the scene. This “hit and run” incident led to Ms Minna and her daughter being transported to Auburn Hospital by ambulance, with Ms Minna noting an increased heart rate and significant pain.
This accident occurred against a backdrop of Ms Minna’s already complex life. A recipient of the Disability Support Pension since 1997 due to prior back problems requiring surgery, she had a long history of depressive and anxious symptoms. She had experienced another motor vehicle accident in 2017, which also resulted in physical injuries to her back and neck, and psychological problems including nightmares and fear of driving, for which she received psychological treatment. Her life was further complicated by long-standing family difficulties, a challenging divorce, and recent significant unrelated medical issues, including cardiac problems requiring a pacemaker insertion, a deep venous thrombosis, and gastrointestinal issues. It was this latest motor accident, perceived by Ms Minna as contributing to an array of physical pains and an exacerbation of her existing mental health struggles amidst her ongoing life challenges, that formed the genesis of the current proceedings, initially for threshold injury assessment, and subsequently, for review of treatment and care.
Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes
Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:
The Claimant presented evidence detailing the physical impact of the August 2020 motor accident on her back and neck, the immediate sensation of shock and fear, and the subsequent ongoing pain and physical limitations. She highlighted the “hit and run” nature of the accident as a source of additional stress. Her arguments for a non-threshold injury and the necessity of psychological treatment rested on the exacerbation of her pre-existing persistent depressive disorder, linking the aggravation of symptoms directly to the subject accident. Ms Minna’s narrative emphasised the worsening of her pain, increased stress, unhappiness, and reduced activity levels following the accident, contrasting it with a period of improved functioning and happiness (including overseas travel and weight loss) prior to the 2020 incident. She also pointed to the eight sessions of psychological therapy as reasonable and necessary for the aggravation of symptoms caused by the accident.
Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:
The Insurer’s primary argument, reflected in the initial Medical Assessor’s determination, was that the Claimant’s psychiatric condition was not a non-threshold injury. This position likely relied on Ms Minna’s extensive pre-existing history of psychological and psychiatric difficulties, including depressive and anxious symptoms dating back to 1997, and prior motor vehicle accidents. The insurer implicitly argued that the subject accident did not cause a new injury or a sufficiently severe exacerbation to cross the “non-threshold” injury threshold, suggesting that her symptoms were more aligned with her long-standing medical and psychosocial stressors. The referral for review indicated the Insurer’s belief that the initial Medical Assessor’s finding of a non-threshold injury (exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder) was “incorrect in a material way”.
Core Dispute Points:
- Causation and Threshold Injury: Whether the motor accident caused or significantly exacerbated a “persistent depressive disorder” to constitute a “threshold injury” under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017. This hinged on distinguishing between Ms Minna’s extensive pre-existing mental health history and the specific impact of the 2020 accident.
- Reasonableness and Necessity of Treatment: Whether the proposed psychological treatment (eight sessions of counselling) was directly related to the injury caused by the motor accident and whether it was “reasonable and necessary” in the circumstances, given her long-standing difficulties and prior treatments.
Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits
The Review Panel’s determination extensively reviewed the Claimant’s history, which would typically be presented through affidavits, medical reports, and other documentation. The strategic intent behind the judicial process, in this context, was to meticulously evaluate the narrative of Ms Minna’s mental health trajectory, distinguishing between long-standing, pre-existing conditions and any specific exacerbations or new injuries attributable to the subject motor vehicle accident.
The Claimant’s submissions, likely supported by her affidavits and medical records, sought to establish a causal link between the 2020 motor accident and a worsening of her psychological symptoms. For instance, Ms Minna stated that “after the subject accident she had ‘a lot of pain’,” and that “after the second accident it was worse and this was because the accident had happened, she felt more pain, she felt more stressed, she felt more unhappy, and she was not active like before.” This was a crucial point, as it aimed to delineate a clear deterioration following the 2020 incident, rather than merely a continuation of her prior state.
Conversely, the Insurer’s position, informed by various reports, would likely have emphasized Ms Minna’s lengthy history of psychological and psychiatric difficulties. The medical records noted “complaints of significant back pain in December 2014” and mental health plans for “depression and anxiety.” Subsequent incidents, including a 2017 motor vehicle accident and another in July 2018, consistently noted diagnoses of stress and depression. The strategic intent of presenting this long history was to suggest that the 2020 accident was merely one of many stressors in a complex life, and that the resulting psychological symptoms might not be solely or substantially causally linked to the latest incident.
The Panel’s procedural directions, including the requirement for all material before the original Medical Assessor, were strategically intended to provide a comprehensive “composite picture” of Ms Minna’s condition. This allowed the Panel to rigorously compare the Claimant’s self-reported changes in functioning and mood against the objective medical and historical records. The nuanced distinction drawn by the Panel between a “more pervasive mood disorder or anxiety disorder” and a “Chronic Adjustment Disorder related to longstanding pain and various psychosocial stressors, that was exacerbated by the effect of the subject motor vehicle accident” demonstrates how the precise phrasing and evidentiary weight of statements in affidavits and reports become determinative in delineating causation and the extent of injury.
Chapter 5: Court Orders
The Review Panel’s proceedings were initiated following an order from the President’s delegate, Stephanie Wigan. On 8 February 2024, the delegate determined that there was reasonable cause to suspect that the medical assessment of Medical Assessor Samson Roberts, dated 27 November 2023, was incorrect in a material way. Consequently, the matter was referred to this Medical Review Panel for a new assessment.
The Review Panel issued directions to the parties on 11 February 2025, concerning the provision of all material that was before the initial Medical Assessor Samson Roberts. This material was subsequently uploaded to the portal, forming the basis of the Panel’s review. The Panel then conducted its assessment via an audio-visual link through the MS Teams platform, as arranged by the Commission.
Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic
The hearing for the review of the Medical Assessment Certificate unfolded with the Review Panel conducting its assessment via an audio-visual link. Ms Minna was at her home, while Medical Assessors Dr Michael Hong and Dr Matthew Jones were in their respective rooms. This virtual setting necessitated a careful approach to eliciting and evaluating testimony, focusing keenly on the Claimant’s narrative and the consistency of her presentation with the extensive documentation.
A critical juncture in the assessment involved probing Ms Minna’s self-reported improvement in mental health between her 2017 motor vehicle accident and the 2020 subject accident. Initially, she conveyed a sense of having become “well” in that period. However, under clarification, she nuanced this, stating she still had “a lot of pain, but it would come and go,” and that after the subject accident, she experienced “a lot of pain.” This subtle shift in her account required the Panel to weigh her subjective experience against the objective medical records.
The core confrontation of evidence centred on Ms Minna’s long-standing mental health history versus the specific impact of the 2020 accident. The Panel carefully explored her history of depressive and anxious symptoms dating back to 1997, her prior psychological and psychiatric treatments, and the influence of multiple psychosocial stressors, including marital and family problems, and previous injuries.
The Panel critically examined Ms Minna’s statement that her mental health “was worse” after the second (2020) accident due to increased pain, stress, unhappiness, and reduced activity. This was juxtaposed against a K-10 assessment score from 2018 (indicating severe mental distress), which Ms Minna paradoxically associated with a period of happiness, overseas travel, and weight loss. Her memory of some historical details, such as seeing particular psychologists or being prescribed specific medications, was not always clear, adding complexity to the factual matrix.
The Panel’s reasoning was evident in its careful synthesis of these often-conflicting elements. The Assessors delved into the specifics of her post-accident decline, such as her inability to maintain childcare work, reliance on lying down, sleep disturbance due to pain, and social withdrawal. They sought to understand what would be different in her life without the pain, to which she responded that she would be “happy,” “move around more,” and “be looking for work.”
The Panel demonstrated a keen discernment in distinguishing between a pervasive mood disorder and an exacerbation of a pre-existing adjustment disorder. The following dictum illuminates the Panel’s core reasoning regarding the nature of her psychological condition:
“The Medical Assessors considered that Ms Minna, and this was supported by the available documentation, had experienced a Chronic Adjustment Disorder related to longstanding pain and various psychosocial stressors, that was exacerbated by the effect of the subject motor vehicle accident and her subsequent ongoing pain and physical limitations. There is a variability in the reactivity to Ms Minna’s symptoms that is not consistent with a more pervasive mood disorder or anxiety disorder. The differential diagnosis is that there is no recognised psychiatric illness, but rather Ms Minna responding to, and reacting to, her various life experiences in the context of her personality and history.”
This statement was determinative in framing Ms Minna’s psychological injury not as a new or pervasive psychiatric illness, but as an exacerbation of an existing adjustment disorder. This nuanced finding allowed the Panel to then proceed to determine the “threshold injury” and the “reasonable and necessary” nature of the treatment within this specific diagnostic framework. The cross-examination process, even in a virtual format, allowed for these critical distinctions to be drawn from the totality of the evidence.
Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court
The Review Panel made the following determinations:
- The Review Panel revokes the certificate of Medical Assessor Samson Roberts dated 27 November 2023.
- The injury caused by the motor accident, being an exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder, is a threshold injury for the purposes of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
- The psychological treatment (including counselling) relates to the injury caused by the motor accident and is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. Specifically, psychological treatment (including counselling) with a start date of 5 May 2023 and an end date of 5 July 2023 is reasonable and necessary in relation to the injury sustained in the subject accident.
Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory
Special Analysis
This case is particularly noteworthy for its nuanced determination of a psychological injury in the context of a claimant with an extensive pre-existing history of mental health challenges and multiple life stressors. The Review Panel did not simply accept or reject the exacerbation of a pre-existing condition but refined the diagnosis to a “Chronic Adjustment Disorder” exacerbated by the accident. This demonstrates a sophisticated judicial approach to causation in complex psychological injury claims, moving beyond simplistic ‘but for’ tests to a more holistic ‘composite picture’ analysis of various contributing factors. It highlights that even with a long history of symptoms, a specific event can be found to be a material exacerbating cause warranting compensation and treatment.
Judgment Points
The Panel’s finding that the exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder is a threshold injury, despite a long history, provides important guidance. It confirms that the existence of prior psychological issues does not automatically preclude a finding of threshold injury if the accident materially worsens the condition. Furthermore, the explicit certification of eight sessions of psychological therapy as reasonable and necessary sets a clear benchmark for appropriate early intervention in post-accident psychological distress, even where a comprehensive, ongoing treatment plan might not be immediately required. This underscores the importance of timely and focused therapeutic support for accident-related symptom aggravation.
Legal Basis
The Review Panel’s determinations were made pursuant to the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the Act), particularly in relation to the definition of a “threshold injury” and the assessment of “reasonable and necessary treatment and care.” The Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 and Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 governed the procedural aspects of the review. The core legal test for determining a threshold injury is whether it constitutes a “minor injury” (which would include psychological injuries that are not recognised psychiatric illnesses) or a “non-minor injury” (a non-threshold injury). The Panel ultimately found Ms Minna’s psychological condition was an exacerbation of a depressive disorder, which, by implication, they considered to be a “recognised psychiatric illness” that was exacerbated, thus not a “minor injury” and therefore a threshold injury.
Evidence Chain
The Claimant’s victory rested on a compelling chain of evidence that connected the 2020 motor accident to a material exacerbation of her psychological symptoms, despite her extensive pre-existing history. Key to this was Ms Minna’s detailed account of the immediate shock and fear post-accident, followed by an increase in pain, stress, unhappiness, and reduced activity levels, contrasting with a period of relatively better functioning prior to the accident. The Panel meticulously weighed her self-reported decline against her medical records, which, while showing a long history of mental health issues, implicitly did not contradict the notion of a discernible worsening attributable to the specific trauma and physical injuries of the 2020 incident. The evidence of her reduced ability to work, increased reliance on rest, and interference with sleep underscored the impact. The eight sessions of psychological therapy provided specific, tangible evidence of a treatment response to these aggravated symptoms.
Judicial Original Quotation
“The Review Panel has concluded that the psychological condition described as exacerbation of depressive disorder, is a threshold injury.”
“The Review Panel found that Ms Minna developed an exacerbation of a Chronic Adjustment Disorder due to the motor vehicle accident. The dispute is in relation to whether the need for eight sessions of psychological therapy was caused by the accident, and whether this treatment was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. The Review Panel concluded that the need for psychological treatment did arise because of an aggravation of symptoms, caused by the motor accident. Eight sessions of psychological therapy is entirely appropriate treatment for the symptoms which developed. The Review Panel found that eight sessions of psychological therapy are reasonable and necessary treatment in the circumstances.”
This judgment clearly articulates the Panel’s finding that, despite Ms Minna’s complex history, the 2020 accident caused a significant aggravation of her psychological condition, meeting the threshold for a non-minor injury. Furthermore, it unequivocally validates the psychological treatment as a direct, appropriate, and necessary response to this aggravation.
Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure
The initial Medical Assessor, whose certificate was revoked, likely failed to adequately distinguish between the Claimant’s pre-existing chronic conditions and the material exacerbation caused by the 2020 motor accident. The initial determination may have too broadly attributed Ms Minna’s symptoms to her extensive history of physical, psychological, and psychosocial stressors, underestimating the specific impact of the subject accident. The Review Panel’s detailed analysis, which acknowledged the “variability in the reactivity to Ms Minna’s symptoms” and pinpointed the accident as an exacerbating factor, indicates that the initial assessment might have lacked the granular evaluation necessary to isolate the accident’s distinct contribution to her current state. The failure was in not recognizing the discrete impact of the 2020 event on an already vulnerable individual.
Implications
- Prior Health Conditions Are Not Automatic Bars: This case demonstrates that a pre-existing medical or psychological history does not automatically disqualify an individual from a successful personal injury claim. The key lies in demonstrating a clear exacerbation caused by the new incident.
- The Importance of Detailed Narrative: For individuals, meticulously documenting changes in symptoms, functioning, and emotional state post-accident, even with a long history of challenges, is crucial. This detailed narrative provides the evidence chain for legal argument.
- Psychological Injuries Are Real and Compensable: The decision reaffirms the recognition of psychological conditions, even exacerbations of pre-existing ones, as legitimate “threshold injuries” in motor accident claims, underscoring the holistic impact of trauma.
- Early Intervention is Key: The validation of eight sessions of psychological therapy as reasonable and necessary highlights the importance of seeking timely professional mental health support post-accident, as such interventions can be causally linked and compensable.
- Complexity Requires Expertise: This case underscores that navigating personal injury claims involving complex histories demands skilled legal and medical expertise to carefully unravel causation and the extent of injury, ensuring all legitimate impacts are recognised.
Q&A Session
Q1: What does “threshold injury” mean in the context of this case, and why was it significant?
A1: In New South Wales motor accident law, a “threshold injury” (formerly “minor injury”) refers to specific types of soft tissue injuries or certain psychological injuries that do not meet the criteria for “non-minor injuries.” If an injury is classified as a threshold injury, the compensation for non-economic loss (like pain and suffering) is generally limited, and access to certain benefits might be restricted. In this case, the significance was whether Ms Minna’s exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder would be deemed a threshold (minor) or non-threshold (non-minor) injury. The Panel found it was an exacerbation of a depressive disorder, which implies it was a “recognised psychiatric illness” and therefore a non-minor injury (i.e., a threshold injury in the context of the initial MAC being revoked meant it was not a minor injury, and thus she was entitled to ongoing benefits). The phrasing here is tricky as the MAC said “non-threshold injury” but the Review Panel said “threshold injury”. The key is that the Review Panel revoked the prior MAC and found the psychological condition is a threshold injury for the purposes of the Act. This means it is a minor injury. The “non-threshold injury” is a common colloquialism for a non-minor injury. The Panel corrected the prior Assessor’s determination to align with the legal framework of a “minor injury”.
Q2: Ms Minna had a long history of mental health problems. How did the Review Panel manage this when determining if the motor accident caused her current condition?
A2: The Review Panel meticulously reviewed Ms Minna’s extensive medical and personal history. They distinguished between her long-standing general vulnerability to psychological distress and the specific exacerbation of her symptoms directly attributable to the 2020 motor accident. They found that while her underlying “Chronic Adjustment Disorder” existed prior, the accident materially worsened this condition, leading to increased pain, stress, unhappiness, and reduced activity. The key was showing the accident acted as a distinct aggravating factor rather than her current state being solely a continuation of her pre-existing difficulties.
Q3: The Panel found that psychological treatment was “reasonable and necessary.” What does this imply for future claims for treatment?
A3: The finding that specific psychological treatment was “reasonable and necessary” confirms that such interventions are considered appropriate for addressing the aggravation of symptoms caused by a motor accident. It implies that if a claimant can demonstrate a causal link between an accident and the need for psychological support, and the proposed treatment is evidence-based and proportionate to the symptoms, it is likely to be approved. This emphasizes the importance of early and appropriate therapeutic intervention following an accident to manage psychological impacts effectively.
Appendix: Core Practical Component Library
1. Practical Positioning of This Case
Case Subtype: Personal Injury – Motor Accident Injuries – Psychological Injury Review
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment (of the Review Panel, overturning an earlier Medical Assessment Certificate)
2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements
This case falls under Personal Injury and Compensation Law, particularly governed by the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW).
Core Test (Threshold Injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)):
Under sections 1.6 and 1.7 of the Act, a “minor injury” (often colloquially referred to as a “threshold injury” which limits certain benefits) is defined as a soft tissue injury or a psychological injury that is not a recognised psychiatric illness. A “non-minor injury” (often colloquially referred to as a “non-threshold injury,” providing broader access to benefits) is any injury other than a minor injury.
The critical determination in this case was whether the “exacerbation of persistent depressive disorder” constituted a “recognised psychiatric illness” (as opposed to being merely a minor psychological injury, like an acute stress disorder not meeting diagnostic criteria for a recognised psychiatric illness). The Review Panel found that it was an exacerbation of a depressive disorder, which implies it met the criteria of a “recognised psychiatric illness.” Therefore, it falls under the definition of a “non-minor injury” for the purposes of benefits related to threshold/non-threshold injuries. The initial MAC incorrectly found it to be a non-threshold (i.e. not minor) injury but the Review Panel corrected this, making it clear that it is a threshold injury (i.e. a minor injury).
Core Test (Treatment and Care – Reasonable and Necessary under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)):
For treatment and care to be compensable, it must be:
1. Caused by the Motor Accident: There must be a causal link between the accident and the need for the specific treatment.
2. Reasonable and Necessary in the Circumstances: This involves considering factors such as:
* The nature of the injury.
* The nature of the treatment (evidence-based, safe, and effective).
* The claimant’s individual circumstances and needs.
* Whether the treatment is generally accepted by the medical profession as appropriate for the injury.
* The cost of the treatment relative to its expected benefits.
Core Test (Causation – General Principles):
The “but for” test (factual causation): Would the injury or need for treatment have occurred “but for” the motor accident?
Legal causation: Is it appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused? This includes considering intervening events or pre-existing vulnerabilities. In exacerbation cases, the question is whether the accident materially contributed to the worsening of the condition.
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims
In Personal Injury matters, equitable remedies are less commonly directly applied to resolve the primary compensation claim itself, as statutory schemes (like the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017) largely govern damages. However, equitable principles or related common law doctrines can influence aspects of a claim:
- Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel: While not directly applicable to the core injury assessment, these principles could arise in ancillary disputes, for example, if promises were made regarding ongoing care or support that were then reneged upon. For instance, if an insurer or party made a clear promise of specific long-term care that led to detrimental reliance by the injured party, estoppel might be argued to enforce that promise.
- Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust: These are generally inapplicable to the core personal injury claim within a statutory scheme like the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, which specifically outlines compensable losses. However, in very unusual circumstances involving the mistaken payment of benefits or the holding of assets on behalf of an incapacitated claimant, such principles might apply if statutory mechanisms for recovery are exhausted.
4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
Regular Thresholds (Personal Injury – Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017):
* Minor Injury Definition: As discussed, this involves soft tissue injuries or psychological injuries not constituting a recognised psychiatric illness. This definition significantly impacts access to non-economic loss compensation and certain treatment benefits.
* Whole Person Impairment (WPI) Threshold: For non-economic loss (pain and suffering), the WPI must exceed 10% (as per the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017). This is assessed by medical assessors.
* Limitation Period: Generally, claims must be lodged within strict time limits (e.g., three years from the date of the accident for most common law claims, with earlier notification requirements for statutory benefits).
Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
* Non-Minor Injury (Threshold Injury): The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 provides for greater access to compensation (including non-economic loss and longer-term treatment) if an injury is determined to be a non-minor injury. This includes recognised psychiatric illnesses. The current case highlights the critical importance of successfully arguing that a psychological injury is a “recognised psychiatric illness” to overcome the “minor injury” classification.
* Extensions of Time: The court retains discretion to extend limitation periods in certain circumstances, such as if the claimant was not aware of the injury’s extent or its causal link to the accident until a later date, or in cases of legal incapacity. However, these extensions are not automatic and require compelling reasons.
* Review Panel Process: As seen in this case, a determination by an initial Medical Assessor can be reviewed if there is a reasonable cause to suspect a material error. This provides an essential avenue for challenging initial findings that may incorrectly classify an injury or deny reasonable and necessary treatment.
Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.
5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation
Citation Angle:
It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving the determination of psychological injuries as non-minor injuries (threshold injuries) under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW), particularly in cases with complex pre-existing mental health histories, and the assessment of psychological treatment as reasonable and necessary.
Citation Method:
* As Positive Support: When your matter involves a claimant with a pre-existing psychological condition that has been materially exacerbated by a motor accident, leading to a need for psychological treatment, citing Minna v AAI Ltd t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMP 457 can strengthen your argument for a non-minor injury (threshold injury) and the compensability of treatment.
* As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case to argue that a pre-existing condition limits compensation, you should emphasize the unique nature of the current matter (e.g., different type of psychological injury, lack of material exacerbation in your case, different treatment modalities) to argue that this precedent is not directly applicable.
Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Claimant / Insurer or Applicant / Respondent.
Conclusion
Minna v AAI Ltd t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMP 457 serves as a crucial reminder that the legal landscape of personal injury compensation is deeply nuanced. It highlights that the presence of extensive pre-existing conditions does not negate the potential for a new injury or material exacerbation to arise from an accident, warranting compensation and necessary treatment. The case powerfully advocates for a holistic, evidence-based approach to assessing psychological injuries and the value of rigorous review mechanisms within statutory compensation schemes.
Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.
Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales (Minna v AAI Ltd t/as GIO [2025] NSWPICMP 457), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.
Original Case File:
👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.