14 Sept 2006
The assessor properly applied the AMA Guides to the appellant's stable condition, relied on contemporaneous medical and radiology reports, and there was no persuasive medical evidence or clear error (including objective evidence of radiculopathy) to justify raising the rating to the 10% threshold; therefore the assessment of 5% WPI stands and the appeal fails.
26 May 2004
The home help reassessment was flawed because the assessor failed to give sufficient weight to contemporaneous medical evidence (specialist and GP); therefore the primary decision reducing hours was set aside and prior entitlements restored pending reassessment after consultation with the GP. The discontinuation of podiatry was also set aside because foot care needs were causally connected to the injury or, alternatively, constituted social rehabilitation that had previously been funded but omitted from the individual rehabilitation plan; appellant entitled to podiatry and the respondent must…
17 Dec 1999
The respondent validly revoked its earlier acceptance under s67A because multiple and consistent specialist medical reports established the appellant suffered brachial neuritis not caused by trauma, so he did not suffer a personal injury by accident and is not entitled to cover; the appeal is dismissed.
16 Jun 1998
The Court held there was no reviewable decision because the initial assessment was a purely administrative act that did not affect the claimant's rights; the absence of a written application was a procedural irregularity not warranting a declaration of invalidity and the Court had no statutory power under sections 91 or 92 to declare the assessment void; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
14 Jul 1997
The appeal is allowed because the Corporation failed to provide adequate reasons for refusing to approve or arrange for an overseas assessor in Sydney; that failure made the decision unsupportable and the matter is remitted to the Review Officer to determine whether the Corporation has provided sufficient justification and acted reasonably after receiving further evidence or submissions.