Richardson bht Richardson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2020] NSWSC 366

Richardson bht Richardson v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2020] NSWSC 366

The medical review panel failed to provide adequate reasons for its assessment by not explaining its classification of the plaintiff’s scarring under Table 2 of the AMA4 Guides and its application of the statutory Guidelines, as required by statute. This was an error of law on the face of the record justifying setting aside the panel’s certificate and remitting the matter for proper determination.

Parties
Plaintiff: Montana Ruby Richardson bht Wendy Richardson; First Defendant: QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd; Second Defendant: State Insurance Regulatory Authority; Third Defendant: The Medical Assessors Review Panel of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority comprising Medical Assessors Allan Meares, John Giles and Michael McGlynn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Certificate set aside; matter remitted for redetermination; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review – Adequacy of Reasons, Medical Assessment – Whole Person Impairment, Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation
Administrative Law Personal Injury Judicial Review – Adequacy of Reasons Medical Assessment – Whole Person Impairment Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montana Ruby Richardson bht Wendy Richardson

Plaintiff

QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd

First Defendant

State Insurance Regulatory Authority

Second Defendant

The Medical Assessors Review Panel of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority comprising Medical Assessors Allan Meares, John Giles and Michael McGlynn

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Medical Assessors Review Panel failed to provide adequate reasons for its assessment of the plaintiff's whole person impairment (WPI) under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the review panel failed to classify the plaintiff's impairment in accordance with the proper method (Table 2 and TEMSKI) required by the statutory guidelines
  3. 3 Whether an error of law on the face of the record occurred justifying quashing the review panel’s certificate

Ratio Decidendi

The medical review panel failed to provide adequate reasons for its assessment by not explaining its classification of the plaintiff’s scarring under Table 2 of the AMA4 Guides and its application of the statutory Guidelines, as required by statute. This was an error of law on the face of the record justifying setting aside the panel’s certificate and remitting the matter for proper determination.

Court Disposition

Certificate set aside; matter remitted for redetermination; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The certificate issued in relation to the plaintiff by the third defendant on 5 September 2019 is set aside.
  • The plaintiff's application for review dated 17 April 2019 is remitted to the second defendant to be referred to a panel of at least three medical assessors in accordance with s 63 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) for determination in accordance with law.