Review Panel Slashes PTSD Impairment Rating From 17% to 7% in Fatal Collision Case
An insurer's challenge to a psychiatric impairment assessment has knocked a truck driver's rating from 17% to 7% - below the threshold for damages.
When Christopher Pidgeon's truck was hit head-on by a car on February 25, 2020, the other driver died instantly. Pidgeon, who had spent roughly 30 years behind the wheel of a truck, witnessed the aftermath at the scene - and it changed everything. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder, could no longer drive, and watched his trucking business slowly unravel even as he tried to keep it running from behind a desk.
He filed a claim with Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance, the third-party insurer of the at-fault vehicle. On February 13, 2025, Medical Assessor Gerald Chew assessed him under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale - a six-category framework used to measure psychiatric impairment in motor accident claims in New South Wales. Chew diagnosed PTSD and major depressive disorder and rated Pidgeon's whole person impairment at 17%. That number mattered. Under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017, a claimant must exceed 10% to access non-economic loss damages.
NRMA Insurance pushed back. It applied to the Personal Injury Commission for a review, targeting three of the six categories where it believed the assessment missed the mark.
The insurer's sharpest argument was on adaptation - the category meant to capture how a claimant handles work and work-like tasks. The original assessor had given Pidgeon a class 4 (severe) rating, reasoning that he could only "slowly do the lawns and take out the bins." NRMA argued that reasoning had more to do with physical limitation than psychiatric impairment. It also challenged the concentration rating, pointing out that no concentration issues were actually recorded at either of Pidgeon's two examinations. And it flagged evidence the assessor had not addressed - including regular social visits, pet care, and a vehicle restoration project - in disputing the social and recreational activities rating.
The Review Panel - Member Jeremy Lum, Medical Assessors John Baker and Christopher Canaris - re-examined Pidgeon via MS Teams on March 18, 2026. In its decision handed down on April 14, 2026, the Panel agreed Pidgeon had PTSD under the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria but rejected the major depressive disorder diagnosis, finding his depressive symptoms fell short of the clinical threshold and were better explained by the PTSD itself.
On adaptation, the Panel dropped the rating from class 4 to class 3. Lawn mowing, it found, was a self-care activity - not a measure of work functioning. And Pidgeon had, in fact, continued running his business, keeping up with tax obligations, insurance, and contracts. That did not square with severe impairment. Concentration fell from class 3 to class 2 after the Panel concluded that Pidgeon's limited reading ability reflected his educational background - he left school at 15 - rather than any decline caused by the accident. The Panel applied clause 6.21 of the Motor Accident Guidelines, assessing impairment as it presented at the time of examination.
The new ratings - 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 - produced a whole person impairment of 7%. The original certificate was revoked.
For insurers, the takeaway is pointed: impairment assessments are not set in stone. Where category ratings rest on misclassified activities or overlooked baseline functioning, a well-targeted review can shift the outcome below the threshold that unlocks damages.
