Keywords: Queensland Supreme Court, personal injury, limitation period, PTSD, paramedic, compulsory third-party insurance, Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), extension of time, psychological injury, CTP claim, vehicle accident litigation
By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury Law | Aug 2025
Subject
Paramedic Denied Extension to Sue Over PTSD From Crash Incident
What Happened
Sonia Grapes, a paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service, developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after attending a horrific motor vehicle accident in September 2018. The crash involved a young passenger whose arm was nearly severed, and Grapes stayed with him for over an hour. Her mental health declined rapidly after the event.
Years later, she attempted to bring a personal injury claim against:
- AAI Limited (CTP insurer),
- The driver involved in the crash,
- The State of Queensland (as her employer).
But she was out of time under Queensland’s limitation laws and applied to the Supreme Court for an extension.
Key Legal Issues
- Limitation Periods: Could the court extend the statutory time limit for bringing a personal injury claim under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)?
- Material Facts: Did Ms Grapes become aware of the severity and cause of her PTSD only recently?
- Means of Knowledge: Could she have reasonably known earlier about the nature of her injury and the identity of the CTP insurer and driver?
What the Court Decided
Justice Copley refused to grant the extension. He found that:
- By early 2021, Grapes knew or had the means to know that her injury was caused by the 2018 accident.
- By March 2021, she believed she could never return to work as a paramedic and had already lodged a WorkCover claim.
- She had access to legal advice by mid-2022 but delayed pursuing a CTP claim.
- The identity of the insurer and driver could have been reasonably found out earlier if she had taken steps to instruct solicitors.
Key Findings
- Earlier Insight into Injury: The applicant demonstrated understanding of her injury’s cause and permanence by 2021, undermining her claim that she only recently became aware.
- Knowledge vs Action: While grappling with mental illness, she still showed awareness sufficient to pursue a claim but failed to act promptly.
- Delay in Legal Action: Despite numerous signs and professional diagnoses, she did not instruct lawyers or seek the driver's identity in a timely way.
- No Justification for Extension: The Court emphasized that once a person is aware of significant injury and potential liability, they must act within time or risk losing the right to claim.
Outcome
The Court dismissed Grapes’ application to extend the limitation period, meaning she could not proceed with her damages claim against the insurer, driver, or State.
Why This Case Matters
This decision underscores the strict interpretation of limitation periods in personal injury law. Even where psychological injuries are involved, courts will closely assess what the claimant knew and when—and whether they took reasonable steps to act on that knowledge.
For claimants and legal practitioners:
- Early legal advice is critical after a traumatic incident.
- Psychological injuries, while complex, won’t always justify delays unless truly outside the claimant’s control.
- Failing to act - even while unwell - can result in permanent loss of legal rights.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for anyone considering a delayed injury claim, especially in the context of mental health.
Source
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QSC24-267.pdf