Key Takeaways
- Claim type: CTP (Compulsory Third Party) motor vehicle accident
- Our client: Disability support worker, employed across three employers, working up to 93 hours per week
- Insurer's position: Pre-accident hours were "unsustainable." Client could work lighter jobs. Damages overstated.
- Result: $1.45 million settlement (inclusive of costs and disbursements)
- Notable factors: Low whole person impairment assessments. No surgery. Insurer's alternative employment arguments rejected.
93 Hours a Week, Three Employers, One Accident
Our client was a disability support worker. Before the accident, she worked across three employers and regularly clocked up to 93 hours a week, earning close to $3,000. That workload was not a temporary spike. It was her normal working life.
A motor vehicle accident changed that. Her injuries meant she could no longer perform the physical demands of disability support work. Her main employer terminated her. The career she had built through years of sustained, demanding work was over.
She lodged a CTP claim. The insurer accepted liability for the accident. What they would not accept was the true cost of what she had lost.
What the Insurer Argued
The insurer's strategy was to minimise her economic loss by attacking her work history.
They started with her hours. Working 93 hours a week across three employers could not have continued indefinitely, they said, so her future loss should be calculated on a lower baseline. Her pre-accident income was "unsustainable."
Then they argued she still had residual earning capacity. The insurer pointed to medical evidence suggesting she could take up lighter duties. The roles they proposed included receptionist and beauty salon assistant.
On top of that, they claimed she had failed to mitigate her loss by not pursuing those alternative roles.
Each argument aimed to reduce the settlement figure. Together, they painted a picture of a claimant whose losses were overstated and whose earning capacity remained largely intact. We disagreed.
How We Built the Case
We needed to prove two things: that her pre-accident earnings reflected her genuine earning capacity, and that the insurer's proposed alternatives were unrealistic.
We engaged independent orthopaedic, psychiatric, and vocational experts who assessed the true extent of her injuries and their impact on her ability to work. The vocational evidence examined the practical reality of the roles the insurer had suggested. A disability support worker with years of experience in that field does not simply transition into reception work or a beauty salon. The skills, the physical demands, and the earning potential are entirely different.
We used her termination from her main employer as direct evidence of incapacity. Her employer did not reduce her hours or reassign her. They ended her employment because she could no longer do the job.
On the question of "unsustainable" hours, we demonstrated that her work pattern was consistent and longstanding. It was not a short-term anomaly. It was the baseline against which her economic loss should be measured.
The Result
We secured a settlement of $1.45 million, inclusive of costs and disbursements.
We achieved that result despite two factors the insurer repeatedly relied on: our client's whole person impairment assessments were relatively low, and she had not undergone surgery. In many CTP disputes, insurers treat both as reasons to cap the settlement figure. Low impairment and no surgical intervention become shorthand for "not that injured."
Here, the real loss was economic. Our client went from earning close to $3,000 a week to being unable to work in her field. The impairment rating did not capture that. The absence of surgery did not change it. We built a case around the gap between what she earned before the accident and what the insurer said she could earn after it. The evidence showed that gap was worth $1.45 million.
When Insurers Dispute Your Earning Capacity
CTP insurers routinely argue that injured workers can take up alternative employment to reduce their loss. The roles they suggest are often theoretical: jobs the claimant has no experience in, no qualifications for, and no realistic prospect of securing at comparable pay.
Challenging those arguments requires more than disagreement. It requires independent vocational evidence, a clear picture of the claimant's actual work history, and medical opinions that address functional capacity rather than impairment ratings alone.
If your CTP insurer is disputing what you can earn after an accident, or arguing that your pre-accident income was not sustainable, those arguments can be challenged. Call State Law Group on 1300 011 149 or contact us online. We offer free consultations on a No Win, No Fee basis. Conditions apply.
Legal disclaimer: This case study describes the outcome of a specific matter settled on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Every claim involves different injuries, losses, and legal issues. This article is general information, not legal advice. If you need advice about a CTP claim, contact State Law Group directly.
