Publications

Spinal nerve injuries are common in personal injury claims following motor vehicle accidents, but they are also legally complex. While imaging often identifies disc bulges or foraminal narrowing, claimant lawyers must understand that structural findings alone do not automatically remove an injury from the statutory threshold injury category under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (MAIA). Recent decisions, including Morrison v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 79 (Morrison) provide important guidance on how radiculopathy, nerve root involvement, and arm symptoms are assessed in this context.

The Statutory framework

The law governing threshold injuries is deliberately narrow and sequential. Section 1.6(2) of the MAIA defines a soft tissue injury to include injuries to muscles, ligaments, tendons, and nerves. Importantly, nerve injuries do not automatically remove an injury from the soft tissue category.

The statutory provision must be read together and in sequence. Clause 4(1) of the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (MAIR) clarifies that a spinal nerve root injury, even when producing neurological signs, remains a soft tissue injury unless those signs constitute radiculopathy. Clause 5.8 of the Motor Accident Guidelines (MAGs) then sets out the test for radiculopathy, requiring the demonstration of at least two recognised objective neurological signs. Subjective symptoms such as radiating pain, tingling, or arm weakness, even when clearly caused by the accident, are not sufficient on their own.

The structure of the legislation is therefore layered. It asks first whether there is a nerve root injury, then whether neurological signs are present, and finally whether those signs meet the defined standard of radiculopathy. Unless the final step is satisfied, the injury remains a soft tissue injury.

Morrison v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

The decision in Morrison illustrates how this sequential analysis operates in practice. The claimant sustained a cervical spine injury in a motor accident in August 2023. The insurer denied liability for ongoing statutory benefits and common law damages on the basis that the injury was a threshold injury. Although the matter proceeded to review, the ultimate conclusion remained unchanged.

Crucially, the Medical Review Panel accepted that the accident was capable of causing, and in fact did cause, a left-sided C3 nerve root injury. That finding, however, did not determine the threshold question. The Panel found no evidence of disc rupture, protrusion or facet capsule tear that would have taken the injury outside the statutory definition of soft tissue injury. More significantly, while there were neurological features present, the claimant demonstrated only one recognised sign of radiculopathy. Clause 5.8 of the MAGs requires at least two.

The Panel also observed that radiculopathy at the C3 level is rare. At higher cervical levels, there are limited myotomal or reflex findings referable to the affected segment. As a result, even a genuine nerve root injury may not manifest in the kind of objective neurological deficits required by the Guidelines. In those circumstances, the injury remains a threshold injury.

Morrison makes clear that causation and classification are distinct inquiries. The acceptance of an accident-related nerve root injury does not resolve whether the injury falls within or outside the threshold definition. The legal characterisation depends upon the presence of qualifying objective signs.

The case underscores three important principles for claimant lawyers. Firstly, a spinal nerve root injury alone is not enough to establish a non-threshold injury. Secondly, two recognised objective signs are required to satisfy clause 5.8 of the MAGs. Thirdly, injuries at upper cervical levels, such as C2–C3, rarely produce measurable radiculopathy, making the evidentiary burden particularly high.

Imaging may reveal foraminal stenosis, disc bulging or nerve root contact. A treating surgeon may even perform decompression. Yet these matters are structural in nature. The statutory test, by contrast, is functional. It is concerned with demonstrable neurological impairment. Without two recognised objective signs consistent with radiculopathy, the injury remains within the soft tissue category, regardless of radiological appearances or surgical intervention. This distinction is critical in practice, where imaging findings are often treated as determinative when they are not.

Why arm symptoms alone are insufficient

Many claimants experience arm pain, tingling, or weakness after cervical trauma, and it can be tempting to assume that these symptoms alone demonstrate a non-threshold injury. The law requires more. Objective neurological signs must be documented to satisfy the statutory test. A disc bulge at C5/6 causing arm symptoms, even when clearly linked to the accident, does not automatically establish radiculopathy. The assessment focuses on clinical findings at the time of evaluation, not just subjective symptoms or structural abnormalities seen on imaging.

The role of surgery

Surgical intervention may assist a claimant’s case where it is supported by documented objective deficits. Pre-operative records demonstrating myotomal weakness, altered reflexes, dermatomal sensory loss or positive stretch tests may provide the necessary foundation to satisfy clause 5.8. However, surgery undertaken in the absence of those findings will not, of itself, convert a threshold injury into a non-threshold injury.

For claimant practitioners, this underscores the importance of early and careful neurological assessment. Expert reports should address the statutory criteria directly and explain whether the clinical findings meet the definition of radiculopathy as articulated in the Guidelines. Particularly in cases involving high cervical levels, careful attention must be given to whether the anatomy realistically permits the demonstration of two qualifying signs.

Strategic considerations for claimant lawyers

For claimant practitioners, the key is to focus on objective clinical evidence. Early and thorough neurological assessment is essential, particularly when imaging shows disc bulges or foraminal stenosis. Expert reports should directly address the statutory framework and whether the findings meet the statutory test for radiculopathy, ensuring that at least two recognised signs are present. Claimants with high cervical injuries require particular attention, as objective signs are often less apparent. Targeting clinical evidence strategically can improve the chances of establishing a non-threshold injury.

Morrison v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWPICMP 79 ultimately reinforces the critical distinction between structural abnormality, subjective symptomatology, and legally recognised radiculopathy. Arm pain, paraesthesia, nerve root contact on imaging, or even surgical decompression will not, in isolation, change the statutory classification of a soft tissue injury. The inquiry is narrower and more exact. To establish a non-threshold injury, claimant lawyers must demonstrate the presence of two objective neurological signs consistent with radiculopathy as defined by the Guidelines. Careful contemporaneous documentation, early neurological evaluation, and carefully framed expert evidence remain the most effective means of challenging a threshold injury determination in spinal nerve root cases.

This article was published on 16 March, 2026 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.