A threshold injury under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) includes a soft tissue injury and a psychological or psychiatric injury that is not a recognised psychiatric illness (adjustment disorder and acute stress disorder are the usual examples; s 1.6 and Motor Accident Guidelines Part 5).
Hearing loss resulting from acoustic trauma in a motor accident may be compensable under the NSW Compulsory Third Party (CTP) insurance scheme. Common errors include failing to seek timely medical assessment, not documenting symptoms or exposure to loud noise at the scene, and not understanding that hearing loss must be linked to the accident to qualify for benefits. These mistakes are particularly relevant in Greater Sydney, where high traffic volumes and complex road environments increase the risk of sudden noise exposure during collisions. The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA) governs CTP claims in NSW, and the Motor Accident Guidelines set out the standards for assessing injury severity and entitlement to benefits.
The CTP scheme provides statutory benefits for all motor accident injuries, including hearing loss caused by acoustic trauma. These benefits include treatment and care, weekly income payments, and, in some cases, damages. However, entitlement to damages is not automatic and depends on whether the injury meets the threshold for a permanent impairment. Acoustic trauma may result in sensorineural hearing loss, which is recognised under the Motor Accident Guidelines as a potential injury that may qualify for compensation. The injury must be clinically confirmed and linked to the accident, not pre-existing or caused by other factors such as occupational exposure or age-related hearing loss.
A common mistake is assuming that hearing loss from airbag deployment or crash impact will automatically be accepted as a CTP claim. The insurer or a medical assessor may challenge the causal link if medical evidence is incomplete or inconsistent. To avoid this, individuals must obtain a specialist audiological assessment within a reasonable time after the accident. The assessment should include audiometry testing, tympanometry, and a clinical history that details the noise exposure during the accident, including the presence of airbag deployment, engine noise, or impact sounds. Photographic or video evidence of the vehicle interior, particularly airbag deployment, may support the claim if available.
Another frequent error is not preserving records of symptoms. Many people report tinnitus, muffled hearing, or ear pain immediately after an accident but delay seeking medical help. This delay can weaken the claim, as the absence of early documentation may suggest the injury is not related to the accident. The Motor Accident Guidelines state that medical evidence must demonstrate a causal connection between the accident and the injury. Therefore, seeking assessment within days of the accident is critical. If treatment is delayed, a medical practitioner should provide a written explanation for the delay and confirm the injury is consistent with acoustic trauma.
A third mistake is misunderstanding the threshold for damages. Under the MAIA, a person may claim damages only if they have a permanent impairment of 10% or more of the whole person. For hearing loss, the impairment is assessed using the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines, which are incorporated into the Motor Accident Guidelines. The assessment considers the degree of hearing loss in each ear, the frequency of loss, and whether the loss affects daily function. A person with a 15% impairment may qualify for damages, but a 5% impairment will not, unless the injury is a threshold injury and the person has not recovered within 52 weeks.
A common error in Greater Sydney is assuming that all hearing loss claims are treated the same, regardless of the nature of the trauma. Acoustic trauma from a sudden, high-intensity noise event (such as a vehicle collision with airbag deployment) is distinct from gradual hearing loss due to long-term noise exposure. The CTP scheme recognises this distinction. If a person has a pre-existing hearing loss, the insurer may argue that the accident did not cause a new or worsened injury. In such cases, a medical assessor must determine whether the accident contributed to the current condition. This requires a detailed medical history and audiometric comparison between pre-accident and post-accident results.
If a claim is disputed, the next step is to request a review from the insurer or apply to the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) for a determination. SIRA provides guidance on how to challenge an assessment, including the right to request a second medical opinion. Individuals should not assume that a negative assessment from an insurer is final. Disputes over hearing loss claims are common, and the process may involve a formal review or, in some cases, a tribunal hearing.
A realistic example: A driver in Sydney was involved in a head-on collision where the airbag deployed and the vehicle’s horn sounded at high volume. The driver reported immediate tinnitus and reduced hearing in the right ear. They sought audiological testing three days later, which confirmed a 25% sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear. The insurer initially denied the claim, arguing that the hearing loss was not caused by the accident. The driver provided a medical report linking the injury to the crash, along with a witness statement from a passenger who heard the airbag deploy and saw the driver wince. SIRA later confirmed the injury was compensable under the CTP scheme.
Every claim depends on its own facts. To request contact about your circumstances, complete the quick, no obligation enquiry form.