No collision. Fading symptoms. NRMA Insurance still lost its challenge to a motorcyclist's PTSD diagnosis in New South Wales.
On April 22, 2026, a Review Panel of the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales handed down a decision that CTP insurers will want to sit with. The Panel affirmed that Robert Alha, a Sydney motorcyclist, suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after a near-miss accident on May 30, 2023 - and that his injury is non-threshold under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
The facts are worth noting. Alha was riding through Campsie during peak hour with his son as a pillion passenger when a car turned right across his path, failing to give way. Alha braked hard and swerved. His son was thrown over his shoulder onto the road. Alha came off the bike too. But here is the critical detail - there was no actual collision with the car. The driver left the scene and returned 25 minutes later.
Alha was taken to Canterbury Hospital with soft tissue injuries. The psychological fallout, however, proved more significant. He was later diagnosed with PTSD - a condition that, under the Act, automatically qualifies as a non-threshold injury. That distinction matters. A threshold injury caps statutory benefits at 52 weeks and shuts the door on common law damages. A non-threshold finding keeps both avenues open.
Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance, pushed back. The insurer sought a review of the original Medical Assessor's certificate, arguing Alha did not satisfy two key diagnostic criteria under the DSM-5-TR - the clinical manual used to assess psychiatric conditions in these disputes. The insurer pointed out that Alha was working full-time in his own building business, was independent in daily life, and had returned to the gym and motorcycle riding. The insurer argued it was unclear how the diagnostic criteria had been met.
And by the time the Review Panel examined Alha on March 26, 2026, the picture appeared even more favourable for the insurer. Alha was by then running multiple businesses, maintaining family relationships, and socialising with friends. The Medical Assessors found no signs of anxiety or depression during the interview. They noted plainly that Alha would not currently meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD - though he still reported occasional nightmares and was triggered by reminders of the accident.
Yet the Panel upheld the diagnosis. It found that in the months following the accident, Alha had blamed himself for putting his son in danger, withdrawn from friends and social life, and been unable to cope with work - delegating most responsibilities when he returned in August 2023. He could not ride his motorcycle for three months. The Panel identified impaired functioning lasting at least nine months.
Drawing on the reasoning in Lynch v AAI Ltd, the Panel held that a psychological condition need only have been present at some point - it does not have to be active at the time of review - to qualify as non-threshold.
The takeaway for insurers is pointed. Near-miss accidents without physical contact can ground a valid PTSD claim. Improved symptoms at review do not undo a historically sound diagnosis. And challenging clinical criteria without independent medical evidence is a difficult path to take.
