29 Aug 2014
The appeal is allowed because the assessor unlawfully deducted physical impairment percentages that were not part of the mental impairment rating, double counted Perthe's disease in apportionment and used non‑impairment factors as grounds for apportionment; these errors render the assessment flawed and require quashing and a fresh assessment of all covered injuries.
29 Jul 2010
Applying the AMA Guides the assessor found a 5% Whole Person Impairment that would have existed prior to the 2006 event; proper apportionment therefore yields no additional impairment from the 2006 injury and the assessed impairment falls below the statutory minimum (Category III/10%) for lump sum entitlement, so the respondent's decision to decline is confirmed.
15 Sept 2004
The medical assessment was flawed: cogent medical evidence (general practice prescription records showing increased Ventolin use post‑accident) undermined the assessor's conclusion on pulmonary impairment, and the assessors also made a mathematical error in combining component impairments; accordingly the review decision was quashed, the Corporation's decision revoked and a new medical assessment ordered.
12 May 2004
Where an assessor properly applies the AMA Guides and excludes non-covered impairment and the assessment is supported by peer review and uncontradicted by an alternative qualified medical assessment, the Court will not overturn the assessed whole person impairment; the claimant must produce an alternative equally qualified assessment or compelling expert evidence to displace it.
7 Nov 2003
The court held that the assessor's AMA Guides–based impairment ratings were properly made, unchallenged by evidence of error, and under the statutory scheme impairment (not prior disability ratings or subjective loss of enjoyment) determines entitlement; therefore no independence allowance or lump sum was payable.
13 Mar 2003
The respondent's decision of 25 October 2001 was correct because the relevant assessments in September 2001 showed 5% whole person impairment for the lumbar spine and 0% for the sensitive claim, which is below the 20% threshold required for an independence allowance; the later medical report post-dates the assessment and may justify future reassessment but does not affect the correctness of the respondent's decision at the time it was made.
11 Mar 2003
Leave to appeal was declined because the District Court's decision involved resolving competing medical opinions and methodological questions under the AMA Guides, a factual determination and therefore not 'wrong in law' under s165(1).
28 Jan 2002
The assessment by a trained AMA Guides assessor based on clinical findings (Dr Milne) was not flawed by the absence of x-rays because the clinical findings supported a 5% whole person impairment, subsequent x-rays disclosed degenerative/inflammatory changes unrelated to the covered traumatic injury and did not raise the impairment to the statutory 10% threshold; therefore the respondent's decision denying an independence allowance is upheld.
17 Aug 2000
The approved assessor's AMA Guides assessment yielded 13% Whole Person Impairment which, after deducting the 21.75% used to calculate the prior lump sum, left no positive impairment; absent compelling contrary expert medical evidence the court must accept the assessor's objective evaluation and therefore the appellant no longer met the statutory threshold for an Independence Allowance, so the respondent's cancellation was upheld.
12 Nov 1999
The assessor's application of the AMA Guides produced a 5% whole-person impairment which falls below the statutory 10% threshold for an independence allowance; in absence of evidence undermining that professional assessment the Court will not disturb the respondent's decision to cancel the allowance, therefore the appeal is dismissed.