Decision
Choi v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025] NSWPIC 433
Principles
✅ A service is not “an attendant care service“, within the definition in section 1.4 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 if it is not an “everyday task” as required by that definition.
✅ A service does not constitute “treatment and care” if it is not designed to assist the Claimant in their recovery and to maximise their return to work and normal life.
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Read
An injured Claimant hires a removalist and asks the Insurer to pay the cost as “treatment and care” expense.
Are the removalist services an “attendant care service” and, therefore, “treatment and care“?
In Choi v QBE, a PIC Member found that the removalist services were not an “everyday task“, which ruled them out from being an “attendant care service“, pursuant to the definition in s 1.4 of MAIA. The Member also found that the services were not “treatment and care” because they were not designed to help the Claimant in their recovery.
Facts
The Claimant was injured in a motor accident on 8 August 2024. The accident caused a whiplash injury to his neck, together with nausea, headaches and pain in his cervical and thoracolumbar spine.
An issue subsequently arose regarding whether the cost of a removalist fell within the definition of “treatment and care” in section 1.4 of MAIA.
How the cost should be characterised was referred to a PIC Member as a Miscellaneous Assessment matter.
Relevant Definitions
Section 1.4 defines “treatment and care” to include eleven items, including “attendant care services“.
Section 1.4 also defines “attendant care services” as “services that aim to provide assistance to people with everyday tasks, and includes (for example) personal assistance, nursing, home maintenance and domestic services” (emphasis added).
Member’s Decision
The Member found that engaging a removalist was not an “attendant care service” and, therefore, was not within the statutory definition of “treatment and care” for two reasons:
🟪 The removalist’s services was a one-off and was not “an everyday task” – in the sense of “usual, ordinary, mundane, routine or regular” – as required by the definition of “attendant care service” in s 1.4.
🟪 Engaging a removalist does not constitute “treatment and care” because it is not designed to facilitate the Claimant’s recovery or to maximise his return to work and other activities.
Pete’s Perspective
The decision in Choi provides another useful example of a service which is not an “everyday task” as required by the definition of “attendant care service“.
For other cases which explore what is – and what is not – an “everyday task“:
🟪 Is House Painting an “Everyday Task”?
🟪 Can Preparing a House for Sale be an “Attendant Care Service”?
🟪 Are childcare services considered treatment and care or domestic services?
🟪 The Dividing Line – When Are Renovations “Treatment & Care”?
🟪 What’s Up, Pussy Cat? Is Pet Care a Treatment Expense?
🟪 Walkies! When are Dog Walking Services Treatment & Care?
🟪 Can Treatment & Care be Found on the Uber App?
PJH