A CTP insurer's 0% impairment win was overturned on review - replaced with a 44% assessment that neither Suncorp nor GIO saw coming.
In a decision handed down on April 29, 2026, a Personal Injury Commission Review Panel revoked the original medical assessment certificates in Singh v AAI Limited t/as Suncorp Insurance & Anor [2026] NSWPICMP 295 and issued a new certificate finding that claimant Tejwant Singh's post-traumatic stress disorder amounted to 44% whole person impairment.
The matter traces back to a motor accident on September 6, 2023, on the M2 motorway. A B-double truck merged into Singh's lane, striking the side of his vehicle. No airbags deployed. No ambulance or police attended. Singh walked away without physical injuries, and the police report described the incident as a "minor traffic crash."
But the psychological fallout told a different story. Singh presented to his GP within days reporting flashbacks, nightmares, and night sweats. Over the months that followed, his condition deepened. By the time the matter reached assessment, he was largely confined to his bedroom, dependent on his parents, showering roughly once a week, and unable to work.
The original Medical Assessor, Dr Hong, diagnosed an adjustment disorder in remission and assessed impairment at 0%. Dr Hong reasoned that the accident did not meet the diagnostic threshold for PTSD and pointed to multiple inconsistencies in Singh's account.
Here is where the case gets uncomfortable for insurers. The experts they engaged told a different story. Dr D'Abrera, retained by Suncorp, found "probable" PTSD but did not assess impairment, concluding the condition had not stabilised and treatment had been inadequate. Dr Thomas, retained by GIO, described an "unusually severe" psychological reaction and called for psychometric testing. Neither disputed the PTSD diagnosis itself.
When the Review Panel re-examined Singh via video, it accepted that a collision with a B-double truck at speed met the diagnostic threshold for PTSD - even without physical injury. The Panel assessed impairment across six categories of the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, assigning class ratings from 2 to 5, arriving at a median of 4, an aggregate score of 21, and a whole person impairment of 44%. No deductions were made for pre-existing conditions or treatment effects.
The Panel did not shy away from its doubts. It acknowledged that the severity of symptoms more than two and a half years after the accident was extreme and raised questions about the authenticity of the presentation. But it found nothing in the evidence that definitively contradicted Singh's account - and that, ultimately, was enough.
The Panel also added a pointed qualification: its findings were "not an endorsement" that Singh's severe loss of functioning would persist long-term, and it expected "substantial recovery" over time.
For claims professionals, the takeaway is practical. When insurer-engaged experts concede a diagnosis without performing an impairment calculation, the gap between those concessions and a favourable original assessment becomes difficult to defend on review. The Panel leaned heavily on its own clinical observations during re-examination, and the absence of hard contradictory evidence carried more weight than inference or suspicion alone.
