Sadsad v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1216

Sadsad v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1216

The medical assessor's reasons did not clearly disclose the pathway of reasoning required by cl 2.5 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines. The Court could not identify the rationale for attributing the left shoulder restriction to age-related changes, for concluding there was a reasonable expectation both shoulders would have had similar findings before injury, or for treating the 1% WPI finding as equivalent to less than average mobility. Because cl 2.5 required the rationale to be explained, the inadequate reasons constituted jurisdictional error and/or error of law on the face of the record, warranting declarations that the medical assessment and the proper officer's consequent...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review of a Medical Assessment Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Further Amended Summons
Outcome
Relief granted; declarations made that the medical assessment certificate and statement of reasons and the proper officer's statement of reasons were void and of no effect; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'medical Assessment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'requirement to Give Reasons' 'medical Assessment Guidelines' 'permanent Impairment Guidelines']
['administrative Law' 'motor Accidents Compensation'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'medical Assessment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'requirement to Give Reasons' 'medical Assessment Guidelines' 'permanent Impairment Guidelines']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review of a Medical Assessment Under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Further Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the medical assessor complied with cl 2.5 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines when deducting 1% whole person impairment by reference to the plaintiff's contralateral uninjured left shoulder." "Whether the medical assessor's reasons disclosed the pathway of reasoning and rationale required for the decision to use the uninjured joint as a baseline." "Whether any failure in the medical assessment also required relief in relation to the proper officer's refusal to review the assessment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The medical assessor's reasons did not clearly disclose the pathway of reasoning required by cl 2.5 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines. The Court could not identify the rationale for attributing the left shoulder restriction to age-related changes, for concluding there was a reasonable expectation both shoulders would have had similar findings before injury, or for treating the 1% WPI finding as equivalent to less than average mobility. Because cl 2.5 required the rationale to be explained, the inadequate reasons constituted jurisdictional error and/or error of law on the face of the record, warranting declarations that the medical assessment and the proper officer's consequent...

Court Disposition

Relief granted; declarations made that the medical assessment certificate and statement of reasons and the proper officer's statement of reasons were void and of no effect; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['A declaration that the whole of the Certificate and Statement of Reasons issued by the Second Defendant, and constituted by the Third Defendant, on 15 November 2013 is void and of no effect.' 'A declaration that the whole of the Statement of Reasons issued by the Fourth Defendant on 20 January 2014 is void and of...