Gary and Debbie Francis have spent the past four years recovering from a serious motorbike crash.
But they say their biggest battle has been dealing with the ACT's compulsory third party insurance scheme, just to be able to get better and survive financially.
While Mr Francis described the claim process under the current scheme as "heinous", he said he would take it any day of the week over the Barr government's proposed changes to the insurance scheme.
He appeared at an inquiry into the proposed new legislation, telling the hearing it would make a bad situation "frankly worse".
The new scheme was
, and would replace the existing at-fault, common law scheme.
It has been roundly criticised by unions and lawyers as putting too much power into the hands of insurers.
In December 2014, Mr and Mrs Francis were riding a motorbike on Wentworth Avenue, returning home from a charity event for underprivileged children, when a car suddenly drove out in front of them.
According to witness reports the force sent them flying two storeys into the air.
Mr Francis suffered multiple significant fractures and tendon tears, spending a month in hospital and afterwards spending months in a wheelchair, while Mrs Francis suffered a fracture and concussion and would later need spinal fusions.
They have both had a series of surgeries and medical procedures in the years since the crash, and neither has been able to work.
Until recently, when Mrs Francis's claim was finalised, they were forced to live on welfare payments after their income protection ran out.
Mr Francis said once someone was released from hospital after an accident, they were left in a minefield of legal barriers to compensation and medical help.
“Until you get in it you really have no comprehension of what [the scheme] means," he said.
“It can be heinously, insidiously toxic to be in."
Despite his issues with the current scheme, Mr Francis said he was unequivocally opposed to every line in the new proposed legislation.
"It is just evil," Mr Francis said.
"We're turning profit-making entities around us ... into the judge, jury and executioner."
One of the most contentious parts of the proposed new law is the total body impairment clause.
It would mean victims who were claiming payments after the five-year cut-off date would have to prove at least 10 per cent impairment.
"All it's going to actually do is mean 90 per cent of victims of accidents can't make any legal claim whatsoever," Mr Francis said.
"Because unless you're broken beyond 10 per cent you can't claim it. Neither of us would meet the threshold."
Mr Francis said he believed the scheme would hand the right to be medically appraised to insurers.
"Rip up the legislation and go do something useful," he said.
Mrs Francis only recently finalised her claim - four years after the accident - while Mr Francis is yet to complete his.
Mrs Francis described it as "torture added on top of physical injury".
"Your quality of life is gone," she said. "Everyone prodding and probing in your life."
Mr Francis hoped the inquiry would stop the legislation in its tracks.
"It has no business being on the table for consideration," he said.
"If we're going to do something let's start with the people who have actually had experience with the system.
"The proposed bill they've got on the table right now isn't worth the paper it's written on - not from a victim's point.
"I would encourage the whole of Canberra to take consideration into this."