12 Aug 2011
There is no medical evidence contradicting the assessor's application of the AMA Guides; the appellant did not demonstrate the objective signs required to establish radiculopathy under the Guides (including required diagnostic testing), so the assessor's classification of Category II (5% WPI) was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
3 Sept 2010
For a lump sum assessment of a treatment injury that is a less-than-expected outcome of necessary surgery, the correct methodology is to assess current impairment, identify the impairment attributable to the ordinary consequence of the surgery (expected 'good result') as pre-existing/non-covered per the ACC User Handbook and AMA Guides, deduct that from current impairment, and convert the net lower extremity impairment to whole person impairment; applying that method (50% LEI minus 37% LEI = 13% LEI = 5% WPI) the 5% WPI assessment was correct and the appeal must be dismissed.
27 Aug 2004
The Court found the respondent's decision unsustainable because Dr Reeves' report was effectively a peer review dependent on a previously discredited report and lacked direct assessment; Dr Wisely's conclusion that no deduction was required because the appellant's pre-injury functioning was normal was accepted; given the appellant could not undergo further assessment the Court lawfully substituted its own impairment finding, fixing whole person impairment at 53% with no deduction.
2 Jul 2003
Regulation 4 prescribes the assessment tool as AMA Guides 4th Edition together with the ACC User Handbook and makes the Handbook prevail on conflict; the appointed assessor's 10% rating was peer-reviewed and the competing 45% opinion did not provide clear, cogent evidence of error or misapplication of the prescribed assessment tool, therefore the respondent's decision was correctly confirmed and the appeal must be dismissed.
24 Jan 2003
The assessor properly applied the AMA Guides (4th ed.), there is no evidence he misapplied the Guides or ignored material objective findings, and additional conditions (psychosocial problems, chronic pain, arachnoiditis, scarring) lack an accepted causal nexus to the covered injury; therefore the 19% whole person impairment assessment stands.
25 Oct 2000
Because the only accepted injury was the lumbar spine and Dr Thomson correctly applied the AMA Guides to assess a 5% whole person impairment for that accepted injury, which is below the statutory 10% threshold, the respondent's decision to terminate the independence allowance was lawful and must be upheld.
18 Feb 1999
The reassessment conducted under the AMA Guides produced a 6% whole person impairment which was confirmed by an independent orthopaedic surgeon; because this is below the statutory 10% minimum entitlement under the Act as amended, the Corporation was correct to cancel the independence allowance, and the Review Officer properly exercised discretion in refusing to reimburse the $230 medical report cost.