Psychiatric Injury Compensation in Car Accidents: $137k Payout for PTSD – Real Case Study

How much for a psychiatric injury compensation claim in Western Australia? A total of $137,701.90 was awarded to the plaintiff, a seasonal market gardener, for psychiatric injuries including anxiety, depression, and possibly PTSD, sustained after two motor vehicle accidents.

The defendants argued the injuries were unrelated or exaggerated. This case, Tran v Alami [2015] WADC 134, highlights the challenges of proving psychiatric injury claims in Western Australia.

Understanding Psychological Injuries Following a Car Accident

The case of [2015] WADC 134 revolves around a plaintiff who was involved in two separate car accidents in 2010. These incidents led to significant psychiatric injuries, primarily anxiety, depression, and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The plaintiff also had a pre-existing issue with his right-hand middle finger that had been treated and resolved before the accidents.

This case serves as an example of how psychiatric injury compensation in car accidents is approached in Australian personal injury law. It illustrates the difficulties plaintiffs can face when claiming compensation for mental health injuries rather than physical injuries.

Claim Type: Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Claim

This case is a motor vehicle accident claim focused on psychiatric injury compensation. The plaintiff sought compensation for PTSD, major depressive disorder, and anxiety resulting from the accidents.

Background

The plaintiff was involved in two car accidents in 2010, both of which were caused by other drivers.

• The first accident occurred on 15 April 2010, where the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a taxi executing a right-hand turn into his path.
• The second accident took place on 1 July 2010, when a vehicle lost control and collided with the plaintiff’s stationary car.

Liability for both accidents was admitted by the defendants.

The plaintiff, a seasonal market gardener, had a limited formal education. He had migrated from Vietnam to Australia, having left school at age 11. The court noted that the plaintiff’s primary motivation for work was financial, preferring factory work if it paid better than market gardening.

Before the accidents, the plaintiff had expressed interest in starting his own market garden, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this aspiration. Therefore, the court did not consider this plan when calculating future economic loss. However, his existing work as a seasonal market gardener was taken into account.

Injuries Suffered: Mental Trauma and Physical Injuries

While the plaintiff sustained minor physical injuries—such as pain in his arm and knee after the first accident—his compensation claim focused on the psychological conditions he developed, including:

• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Major depressive disorder
• Anxiety disorder

Circumstances of the Car Accident Trauma

In both accidents, the plaintiff was not at fault. The first accident involved a taxi colliding with the front of the plaintiff’s car, and the second accident occurred while the plaintiff’s car was stationary at a traffic light.

The emotional toll of these incidents led to severe psychological trauma, with symptoms including fear, depression, and social withdrawal. During the first accident, fire and rescue personnel were required to extricate the plaintiff, which significantly added to his trauma.

Key Disputed Issues in the Compensation Claim

• Causation: Whether the plaintiff’s psychiatric injuries were directly caused by the two accidents.
• Exaggeration: Whether the plaintiff exaggerated his symptoms to inflate his claim.
• Mitigation of Losses: Whether the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate his damages, particularly by seeking proper medical treatment.
• Quantum of Damages: The extent of the plaintiff’s incapacity and the appropriate compensation for his psychiatric injuries.

Key Evidence Supporting Psychological Impact

• Medical Testimony:
  • Dr. Skerritt (Plaintiff’s Psychiatrist): Diagnosed PTSD and major depression, recommending comprehensive treatment. He expressed doubts about the plaintiff’s ability to return to work.
  • Dr. Mander (Defendant’s Psychiatrist): Initially suspected malingering but later diagnosed major depressive disorder. He acknowledged overlap between PTSD and depression but believed major depression was more likely. He was optimistic about the plaintiff’s recovery with aggressive treatment.
  • Dr. Sang (Psychologist): Administered psychological tests orally, raising concerns about the reliability of the high scores. The court questioned the validity of these results due to potential bias in how the tests were conducted.
• Family Testimony:
  • Plaintiff’s Wife: Testified about her husband’s behavior post-accident, stating that he became more withdrawn and less helpful with household tasks. She noted that while she was already working part-time before the accident, her workload increased significantly after. Additionally, the court noted inconsistencies in her testimony regarding household responsibilities​.
  • Plaintiff’s Brother-in-Law: He lived with the plaintiff and his family and provided care. However, the court found inconsistencies in his testimony, including his claim that he moved solely to provide care, despite paying rent to live with the family​.

No Win, No Fee Lawyers

Under the No Win, No Fee arrangement, you won’t need to pay Foyle Legal’s Legal fees (the fees that we charge for the work we do on your claim), unless we get you a settlement amount.

Your lawyer will take you through this arrangement in more detail including any terms and conditions in your obligation free first initial consultation.

For quick information on our No Win, No Fee terms and disbursements, please visit our No Win No Fee Lawyers Page 

Court’s Findings on Personal Injury Compensation

The District Court of WA concluded that the accidents materially contributed to the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition, based on the medical evidence presented. The court emphasized that the psychiatric injuries were genuine, although there was evidence of exaggeration of symptoms and incapacity.

The court acknowledged the debate between PTSD and major depressive disorder but stated that the specific diagnosis was not crucial since the treatment for both conditions was similar. The court noted that regardless of the label, the plaintiff required substantial treatment for his psychiatric injuries.

Compensation Amount

The plaintiff was awarded $137,701.90 in damages, broken down as follows:

• Non-Pecuniary Loss: $39,850 for pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
• Past Economic Loss: $30,000 for lost income from casual market garden work.
• Future Economic Loss: $20,000, reflecting the potential for part-time work after treatment.
• Future Treatment Expenses: $33,000 for ongoing psychiatric treatment, including potential ECT.
• Past and Future Gratuitous Services: $9,500 for care provided by the plaintiff’s family.
• Future Travel Expenses: $2,000 for medical appointments.
• Special Damages: $3,351.90 for Medicare refunds​

As the injury was a motor vehicle accident in Western Australia is is likely that the damages were paid by the CTP insurer for car accident claims, the Insurance Commission of Western Australia.

Legal Principles Applied in Proving Psychological Trauma

The court applied established principles from cases such as CSR v Eddy, which limits damages for gratuitous care provided by family members. Specifically, the court awarded damages for household chores and self-care that the plaintiff could no longer perform but did not award damages for gratuitous childcare services. The court also referenced City of Stirling v Tremeer and March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd regarding causation.

Implications and Significance for Personal Injury Claims

This case reinforces the compensability of psychiatric injuries resulting from car accidents, even when physical injuries are minor. It highlights several important points:

• Expert medical testimony is critical to proving psychiatric injuries.
• Proper treatment regimes are essential in both recovery and litigation.
• The court is prepared to scrutinize the credibility of witnesses and adjust damages if there is evidence of exaggeration.

Conclusion

[2015] WADC 134  offers key lessons for individuals pursuing psychiatric injury compensation following a traumatic event:

• Seek immediate medical attention, including psychiatric evaluation, and maintain detailed records of your treatment.
• Be honest with medical professionals about your symptoms, as credibility can affect your claim.
• Consult a personal injury lawyer to ensure you receive fair compensation.
• Follow medical advice to improve your recovery and support your compensation claim.

If you or someone you know has experienced a similar situation and is seeking compensation for psychiatric injuries, contact us at Foyle Legal for an obligation free consultation. Our experienced team of injury compensation lawyers can help you navigate the legal process and ensure you get the compensation you deserve.