Decision
Jung v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 128
Sixty-Second-Or-Less Read
A Claimant is involved in a rear end collision. The Claimant suffered from pre-existing annular tears in her cervical spine. An MRI scan, post-accident, demonstrated marrow oedema and a punctate area of high signal at C6/7.
Did the accident cause the Claimant a non-threshold physical injury?
In Jung v Allianz, the Medical Review Panel found that the post-accident MRI findings demonstrated an extension to the Claimant’s pre-existing annular tears. Given that this involved partial rupture of cartilage, the Review Panel accepted that the injury fell outside the definition of “soft tissue injury” in s 1.6(2) of MAIA and was, therefore, a non-threshold injury.
Principles
✅ A claimant is not entitled to ongoing statutory benefits and/or common law damages if their motor accident only causes them threshold injuries.
✅ Section 1.6(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) says that a threshold physical injury is a “soft tissue injury”.
✅ Section 1.6(2) of MAIA defines what is and what is not a “soft tissue injury” and says, inter alia, that a complete or partial rupture of cartilage is not a “soft tissue injury”.
✅ An accident-related extension to an annular tear constitutes a non-threshold injury because it involves a partial rupture of cartilage.
Facts
On 10 December 2022, the Claimant was riding in the back seat of a vehicle which was stationary at traffic lights when the vehicle was rear-ended by the insured. The impact allegedly caused injuries to the length of the Claimant’s spine, chest and right shoulder.
The Insured denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits on the grounds that the only injuries sustained by the Claimant were threshold injuries. A primary PIC Assessor found that none of the injuries alleged by the Claimant were caused by the accident. The Claimant successfully sought referral to a Review Panel.
The Review Panel Decision
The Review Panel found a non-threshold injury to the Claimant’s cervical spine for the following reasons:
🟪 An MRI scan in June 2019 – some 3.5 years prior to the MVA – revealed pre-existing annular tears at C4/5 and C6/7.
🟪 The Claimant experienced neck pain on the night of the MVA.
🟪 Hospital records prepared four days post-accident verify neck complaints.
🟪 The rear-end collision was capable of causing the alleged injury to the Claimant’s cervical spine.
🟪 An MRI scan in March 2023 showed marrow oedema and a punctate area of high signal at C6/7, which indicated an acute injury.
🟪 The MVA made a more than negligible contribution to the extension of the Claimant’s pre-existing annual tears.
🟪 The MVA, therefore, caused a partial rupture of cartilage which falls outside the definition of “soft tissue injury” in section 1.6(2) of MAIA.
My Perspective
The decision in Jung confirms that a claimant can demonstrate a non-threshold injury if they can satisfy a Medical Assessor that an MVA caused an extension in their pre-existing annular tear. The extension represents an additional rupture to cartilage, caused by the accident, which falls within the list of exceptions in the definition of “soft tissue” injury in section 1.6(2) of MAIA.
PJH