A recent decision of the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) Ellis v AAI Ltd t/as GIO [2025] NSWPIC 162 confirms that while major home renovations don't qualify as "attendant care services" under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAIA), they may still be recoverable as "home and travel modification" if they assist with injury-related limitations. This case serves as an important reminder for claimants recovering from an accident that support does not always come in obvious forms and care can look different from what you might expect, but only those services and modifications that directly relate to the injury are recoverable under the statutory scheme.
Background
The claimant in this case, Ms Ellis, was injured in a motor accident on 29 September 2023 and later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her injuries resulted in social isolation, weight loss, and mobility issues, symptoms that significantly affected her ability to live independently and feel safe in her own home.
To address these limitations, she submitted a request for the insurer to pay for $150,217 worth of home renovations, including:
- Replacing her bath with a walk-in shower due to a fear of falling,
- Altering her kitchen layout to allow safer cooking and easier movement,
- Soundproofing a bedroom wall to block out noise from a nearby lift that triggered her misophonia.
The insurer rejected the request, arguing that these works weren't "attendant care services" and therefore weren't recoverable under the statutory benefits scheme. Ms Ellis disputed the decision and commenced proceedings in the PIC.
The legal framework
Under the MAIA, injured persons are entitled to statutory benefits for "treatment and care" that is both reasonable and necessary, and related to the injuries sustained in the motor accident.
The category "Treatment and care" is defined in section 1.4 of the MAIA and includes several categories, among them "attendant care services" and "home and transport modifications".
The key issue in Ms Ellis' case was whether her renovations fitted into either of these categories.
The PIC findings – what's an "everyday task"?
The PIC Member first examined whether the renovations could be classified as "attendant care services". This category typically refers to help with daily tasks, things such as dressing, bathing, or basic domestic duties.
The Member concluded that Ms Ellis's renovations were not "everyday tasks" for three main reasons:
- The scope of work was substantial and would take approximately 12 weeks to complete.
- The renovations involved full room refurbishments, including costly fittings and structural changes.
- Ms Ellis would have to vacate her apartment during the renovations.
Because of these factors, the work fell outside the ordinary meaning of "attendant care". They were clearly not the kind of repetitive, routine support that the legislation intended to cover in this category.
Are renovations ever covered?
Yes, but under a different heading. While the PIC found the renovations were not attendant care services, it agreed they could be considered "home modifications" under the definition of "treatment and care" in section 1.4 of MAIA.
The decision turned on one key factor, that the renovations were not cosmetic or lifestyle upgrades. Instead, they were directly aimed at alleviating limitations caused by Ms Ellis' injuries. For example:
- The walk-in shower addressed a mobility and safety concern.
- The kitchen redesign supported safer daily living.
- Soundproofing reduced exposure to a trigger for her PTSD.
These weren't just renovations, they were interventions tailored to her injury-related needs. On that basis, the PIC ruled that the works qualified as "treatment and care" under the scheme.
This is distinguished from an earlier PIC decision in Warner v NRMA Insurance (No 1) [2023] NSWPICMP 334, (link to case https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPICMP/2023/334.html) where renovations to a shed and backyard tiling were found not to be recoverable. In that case, the works were not clearly tied to the injured person's post-accident limitations, and they were more about finishing off an unfinished project than enabling recovery.
By contrast, Ellis makes clear that when renovations are purpose-built to address injury-related needs, they may be compensable under the scheme, just not as "attendant care".
Why this case matters for claimants
This decision adds to the growing clarity around how support services are defined under the MAIA. It confirms that not all injury related expenses fit neatly into traditional care categories. Major home modifications can still be considered "treatment and care" if their purpose is to enable the claimant to manage their injuries and live safely. The insurer's approval is not limited to only basic, routine tasks; what matters is the function of the modification in assisting with recovery.
However, the ruling also reinforces that not all renovations will be approved. Claimants must demonstrate that the work is necessary, connected to their injuries, and not simply a lifestyle upgrade or convenience. Whether each specific modification is reasonable, necessary, and injury-related remains a medical issue to be assessed on the evidence.
Key takeaway
If you've been injured in a motor vehicle accident and are considering home modifications to help you manage your recovery, it's essential to:
- Obtain medical advice and evidence to support the necessity of the works,
- Ensure the modifications are clearly linked to your injuries and limitations,
- Be prepared to show how the changes will help with day-to-day living or reduce your injury-related risks.
The Ellis decision shows that claimants should not dismiss renovation related support just because it doesn't fall under a narrow view of "attendant care". With the right evidence, even structural home changes may form part of your path to recovery.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
