Keywords
Limitation of actions – extension of time – personal injuries – motor vehicle accident – workers’ compensation – CTP insurance – PTSD
Facts
The applicant was employed as a paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service. On 2 September 2018, she attended the scene of a single, motor-vehicle accident and provided assistance to the young, injured, male passenger, whose arm had been almost completely amputated.
Following this event, the applicant’s ability to cope at work deteriorated and she would, from time to time, be unable to attend work due to panic attacks and nausea.
In January 2019, the applicant was issued a medical certificate to take time off work. She used 100 hours of sick leave and eventually returned to work, however, her psychological condition continued to worsen and there were periods where she was unable to work.
On 20 January 2021, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD caused from work. The applicant lodged an application for workers’ compensation.
It was not until about 31 March 2021 that the deterioration in the applicant’s psychological functioning was linked to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2 September 2018. It was during her psychological treatment that it had become obvious that the accident was the “catalyst for her demise”.
As a result, she applied to have the date of injury on her workers’ compensation claim amended from 20 January 2021 to 2 September 2018. This was refused, so the applicant submitted a review of the decision.
The applicant consulted a law firm about her claim, but the firm declined to act and advised her of the relevant time limitations. On 31 May 2022, the applicant consulted Ms Denning who declined to act on a speculative basis and also advised the applicant that she had a potential compulsory third-party claim and for that, she would need a police report number and the vehicle registration number. At the time, the applicant said she was not in a fit mental state to find out the registration numbers.
In early 2023, the applicant consulted Ms Denning who said the firm would act for her in the workers’ compensation common law claim and a CTP claim. A number of enquiries were made to determine the registration and identity of the driver involved in the accident on 2 September 2018. These details, along with the CTP insurer of the vehicle, were not obtained until 8 November 2023.
The applicant sought an order that the time limit for her personal injuries claim against the respondents be extended.
Decision
Copley J, decision delivered 6 November 2024. Application dismissed.
Ratio
The Judge was required to consider whether any of the material facts were of a decisive character.
The applicant submitted that it was not within the means of her knowledge that the accident caused the PTSD until a medico-legal report was obtained in December 2022 which provided that the accident caused the PTSD, her condition was permanent, and she would never return to her career as a paramedic.
Judge Copley did not accept this submission as the applicant was aware of these facts from March 2021 (when her psychologist first linked the accident to her psychological injury) and concluded that the applicant did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the nature and extent of her psychological injury in the period after this material fact.
Another submission put forward by the applicant was that her solicitor only became aware of the identity of the at-fault driver and CTP insurer on 8 November 2023. The Judge held that a reasonable step to discover the at-fault driver’s identity would have been to instruct solicitors to pursue the issue with a view to commencing an action. The applicant did this in March 2023 – two years after the accident was first linked to her psychological injury.
Judge Copley concluded that had the applicant instructed a solicitor by the middle of 2021, even with the hurdles involved to ascertain the identity of the respondents, the applicant would have discovered their identity by early 2022 and the delay would have been avoided.
Share this article