Allianz sought to overturn a psychological injury finding — and ended up handing the claimant a stronger diagnosis instead.
In a decision filed on March 19, 2026, and amended on April 2, 2026, a Review Panel of the NSW Personal Injury Commission revoked an original medical assessment and replaced it with a post-traumatic stress disorder finding — a recognised psychiatric illness, and decidedly not a threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
The case, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v DSS [2026] NSWPICMP 210, arose from a motor accident on October 11, 2019. The claimant was driving when an oncoming vehicle crossed onto her side of the road and collided with her car. She sustained physical injuries and developed psychological symptoms in the weeks and months that followed.
Allianz accepted liability for statutory benefits for the first 26 weeks. After that, the insurer ceased payments, taking the position that the claimant's psychological injury was a threshold injury — meaning, under the Act, a psychological or psychiatric injury that does not amount to a recognised psychiatric illness. If that classification holds, benefits stop and the claimant loses access to damages.
The matter went to the Personal Injury Commission, where Medical Assessor Christopher Canaris initially found the accident caused an aggravation of bipolar 2 disorder and a specific phobia of driving - both non-threshold injuries. He also noted a high functioning autism spectrum disorder, though unrelated to the accident.
Allianz applied for review on October 29, 2024, arguing the claimant's pre-existing conditions, including possible personality traits, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and a potential endocrine condition, could explain her presentation. The insurer also raised evidence of alcohol and cannabis use in early clinical records and contested whether the criteria for specific phobia had been met.
The Review Panel - Member Maurice Castagnet, Medical Assessor Himanshu Singh, and Medical Assessor Christopher Rikard-Bell - re-examined the claimant via video link on October 15, 2025. Under the Act, a review is not a narrow look at what went wrong. It is a fresh assessment of everything the original medical assessment covered.
The Panel's conclusion went in a different direction. It rejected the bipolar 2 disorder diagnosis, finding no evidence of depression, hypomania, or mania before the accident and no history of mania or hypomania after it. It set aside the autism spectrum diagnosis. And it found the claimant met the full DSM-5 TR criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder - intrusion symptoms, avoidance, negative mood changes, and heightened arousal - all tied directly to the crash.
The Panel certified PTSD as a non-threshold injury and revoked the original certificate dated 25 September 2024.
For CTP insurers in New South Wales, the takeaway is practical. A review application under the Act opens the door to a complete reassessment - and a panel is free to reach its own view. When the original diagnosis is complex or contested, the replacement may turn out simpler, more robust, and harder to challenge. Here, an arguable bipolar aggravation gave way to straightforward PTSD.
Sometimes, the review you seek is the one that works against you.
