Page 253 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Of course, there will be instances in which full recovery from serious injury will not be possible, even with the best of medical intervention. That is why the bill provides for non-economic loss damages to continue to be payable for the more seriously injured—that is, those above the permanent impairment threshold specified in the bill.
The key elements of the bill are: the establishment of a statutory minimum impairment threshold process for non-economic loss damages; the provision of a mechanism for independent, expert medical assessments to be undertaken shortly after the injury occurred to assess the impairment of a person injured in a motor accident; allowing for medical assessments to be peer reviewed and, if necessary, reviewed by the court, with these medical assessments being binding on the parties to a motor accident claim and conclusive proof in any court; in undertaking a medical assessment, the physical and psychological elements are not to be combined, however, psychological assessments may be made in isolation; and if a person is injured in a motor crash, then they will be entitled to non-economic loss only if their injuries are serious such that their whole person permanent impairment is 15 per cent or more, and the same threshold will apply to both physical and psychological injuries.
To dispel the misinformation that has been put about by the interest groups opposed to the bill, it does not take away any existing right that an injured person has to claim any other category of compensation. This includes both a person’s past and future loss of earnings, the full cost of their medical treatment and rehabilitation, the cost of home and vehicle modifications and attendant care where that is required.
The bill provides that interest on damages will only be payable in the following circumstances: where the respondent, the insurer in most cases, receives information that would enable a proper assessment of the injured person’s motor accident claim and has a reasonable opportunity to make a settlement offer, where appropriate, but no offer is made; where the respondent/insurer receives further information and has a reasonable opportunity to make a revised settlement offer but no revised offer is made; the respondent—an insurer or the nominal defendant—fails to comply with the information disclosure provisions under part 4.6 of the CTP act; and where a settlement offer has been made but the court-awarded damages are more than 20 per cent higher than the highest settlement offer, and the settlement offer was unreasonable having regard to the information available to the respondent.
Under this bill, 84 per cent of people injured in motor crashes will no longer have to be concerned about the subjective lottery of “pain and suffering” compensation for their injuries. Their pain and their suffering will be treated in a defined, structured and effective way under the statute. Compensation will be determined by particular statutory formulas and mechanisms that will enable injured crash victims to progress into their recovery in the knowledge that whatever it has or will cost them in time, money and future care as a result of being negligently injured, it will be recoverable under the scheme.
We are continually bombarded by complaints from Canberrans about the cost of compulsory third-party premiums, while the injured are required to wait by a telephone to be told what to do next in order to maximise financial rewards under the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video