Publications

The decision in Angileri v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2026] NSWPIC 139 provides important guidance on the operation of Rule 109 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules (PIC Rules) and when surveillance material may be admitted in medical assessment proceedings.

While the decision itself concerns the interpretation of “exceptional circumstances”, its broader significance lies in what it may mean for claimants involved in psychiatric and personal injury disputes before the Personal Injury Commission (PIC).

Rule 109 and Surveillance Material

Rule 109 provides that surveillance recordings are not to be referred to a Medical Assessor unless “exceptional circumstances” exist, and the PIC or President permits the material to be relied upon.

The Rule operates as an important procedural safeguard. Surveillance evidence has long been recognised as controversial because it captures only limited snapshots of a claimant’s life and functioning. It is inherently selective, often recorded over short periods of time, and may not accurately reflect the broader reality of a claimant’s symptoms, pain, or psychological impairment.

In many cases, surveillance footage shows claimants engaging in isolated activities without any context regarding the consequences of those activities, the preparation required to undertake them, or the impact experienced afterwards. Rule 109 was therefore designed to prevent surveillance from becoming routinely relied upon in medical disputes.

The decision in Angileri demonstrates how the PIC may approach the “exceptional circumstances” requirement where an insurer alleges inconsistencies between surveillance footage and the claimant’s presentation to medical experts.

Background

The claimant suffered psychiatric injury following a motor accident and was assessed as having 15% whole person impairment.

During the assessment process, the claimant provided a history which included that she struggled socially, rarely left the house except for essential activities involving her children and had limited engagement with the community.

Following the assessment, the insurer obtained surveillance footage which allegedly depicted the claimant:

• Driving and refilling her motor vehicle with fuel;
• Attending school grounds to drop off and collect her children;
• Watching sporting events;
• Interacting with other people socially;
• Grocery shopping on several occasions; and
• Attending a hospital with another person.

The insurer argued that these activities were inconsistent with the history provided to the original Medical Assessor and sought to rely upon the surveillance before the Medical Review Panel. The claimant opposed the application.

Ultimately, the Principal Member concluded that the inconsistencies depicted in the surveillance constituted “exceptional circumstances” and permitted the material to be admitted.

Why the Decision Matters

The significance of Angileri extends beyond the specific facts of the case. The decision may indicate a broader willingness to admit surveillance material where insurers can point to any apparent inconsistency between a claimant’s reported limitations and their observed activities.

Importantly, the activities captured in the surveillance were not extraordinary. They involved ordinary day-to-day tasks and interactions that many injured people continue to undertake despite ongoing impairment.

For claimants with psychiatric injuries, this raises significant concerns.

Psychiatric impairment is rarely absolute. Many individuals suffering anxiety, depression, post-traumatic symptoms, or other psychiatric conditions continue to perform necessary daily tasks despite considerable internal distress. A claimant may attend a child’s sporting event, go grocery shopping, or briefly interact with others while still experiencing substantial psychological symptoms.

The ability to perform an activity on one occasion does not necessarily demonstrate an ability to sustain that activity consistently, comfortably, or without consequence.

Surveillance footage often cannot capture:

• Emotional distress experienced before or after an activity;
• The extent to which a claimant pushes themselves out of necessity;
• Recovery time required after social interaction;
• The episodic or fluctuating nature of psychiatric symptoms; or
• The difference between isolated participation and genuine functional capacity.

The concern arising from Angileri is that relatively ordinary activities may increasingly be characterised as inconsistencies sufficient to satisfy Rule 109.

Although Rule 109 continues to require “exceptional circumstances”, the interpretation adopted in Angileri suggests that the threshold may not be particularly difficult for insurers to satisfy where surveillance arguably contradicts aspects of the claimant’s reported presentation.

The Principal Member adopted the established position that “exceptional circumstances” means circumstances which are “unusual” or “out of the ordinary”, rather than something extraordinary or rare.

In practical terms, this may encourage insurers to obtain and rely upon surveillance more frequently in psychiatric impairment matters, particularly where there are allegations that the claimant has overstated social restriction or functional limitation.

For claimants, the consequences may be substantial. Surveillance evidence often carries persuasive weight because it presents visual material which may appear compelling when viewed in isolation. Even where the footage captures only brief or selective moments, it may still influence the assessment of credibility, presentation, and functioning.

Implications for Claimant Representatives

The decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that medical histories comprehensively explain the fluctuating nature of psychiatric injury and the distinction between occasional activity and sustainable functioning.

Claimants should not feel compelled to present themselves as entirely housebound or incapable of undertaking any daily activities. Rather, medical evidence should carefully explain:

• The limitations experienced during activities;
• The inconsistency or unpredictability of functioning;
• The psychological cost associated with participation in social or public settings;
• The distinction between necessity and capacity; and
• The after-effects of engaging in activities.

The reality for many injured people is that they continue to attempt aspects of ordinary life despite ongoing impairment. Attending a school event or completing grocery shopping does not necessarily mean a claimant is functioning normally or free from psychiatric symptoms.

The decision in Angileri represents an important development in the PIC’s approach to surveillance evidence under Rule 109. While the Rule remains intended to limit the routine admission of surveillance material, the case suggests that alleged inconsistencies between surveillance footage and a claimant’s reported presentation may readily satisfy the “exceptional circumstances” requirement.

For claimants, particularly those with psychiatric injuries, the decision highlights the growing importance of ensuring that medical histories accurately and comprehensively reflect the nuanced, fluctuating, and often invisible nature of psychological impairment.

This article was published on 11 May by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. (www.codea.com.au). If you or a loved one has been injured, use our Personal injury Claim Check now.