In this matter, the claimant suffered ‘slight scarring of the right wrist and elbow’ in the subject accident. The claimant’s solicitors alleged that the skin is an organ and therefore any injury to skin is a non-minor injury. The insurer submitted that an injury to skin would only constitute a non-minor injury if there was a corresponding injury to nerves or a complete or partial rupture of tendons, ligaments, menisci or cartilage.

The Panel noted that previous decisions had cited the second reading speech of the Motor Accident Injuries Bill, which emphasised that the minor injury definition was designed to reduce exaggerated claims. If the claimant’s position was accepted (i.e. that any injury to skin is automatically non-minor), the Panel opined that this would result in an interpretation that would be ‘manifestly absurd or unreasonable’.

After considering the evidence, the Review Panel concluded as follows (emphasis added):

‘[119] On further review the Panel considers it simplistic to simply say the skin is an organ and therefore, any injury to the skin no matter how minor would be excluded from the definition of “minor injury”…

…. [121] The Panel notes that the definition of “soft tissue injury” in s 1.6(2) of the MAI Act refers to an injury to tissue that connects, supports or surrounds other structures or organs of the body. As the insurer submits the skin is made up of three layers of tissue, the epidermis, the dermis and the hypodermis which support and surround other structures and whether or not the skin is also designated as an organ it is only excluded from the definition of “soft tissue injury” if there is “an injury to nerves or a complete or partial rupture of tendons, ligaments, menisci or cartilage”…

…. [122] The Panel is satisfied that injury to the skin as an injury to connective tissue which connects, supports and surrounds other structures is a minor injury unless the injury to the skin also involves an injury to nerves (which would be evidenced by sensory loss), or a complete or partial rupture of tendons, ligaments, menisci or cartilage…

… [125] The Panel considers this conclusion is consistent with the purpose of the MAI Act, as outlined in the Ministers second reading speech and with the objects of the Act as set out in s 1.3. Section 1.3(3) acknowledges that in the application and administration of the Act all “participants in the third-party insurance scheme have shared and integrated roles with the overall aim of benefiting all members of the motoring public by keeping the overall costs of the scheme within reasonable bounds”…

… [127] The Panel finds that the scarring is a minor injury for the purposes of the MAI Act’.

Hopefully this decision will provide some helpful authority for the skin disputes that occasionally arise in statutory benefit claims. From 1 April 2023, the ‘minor injury’ terminology will be replaced with ‘threshold injury’, alongside an increase in the statutory benefits period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. Notwithstanding the change in terminology, this decision will remain helpful for assessing skin injuries.

Further information / assistance regarding the issues raised in this article is available from the authors, Michelle Landers, Partner and Jackson Clarence, Associate, or your usual contact at Moray & Agnew.