1 Dec 2011
Dr Asteriadis' report was inconclusive and described the appellant's pain condition as multi-factorial without establishing on the balance of probabilities that a mental injury was caused by the covered physical injury; therefore the Reviewer did not err in directing a further psychiatric assessment and the Court will not overturn that direction but dismisses the appeal.
19 Sept 2011
Reassessments by multiple specialists attributed less than 10% Whole Person Impairment to the appellant's covered occupational hearing loss and, as a matter of law, injuries after commencement of the 2001 Act cannot be included in Independence Allowance assessments; therefore the appellant does not meet the statutory 10% threshold and the respondent's decision to discontinue the Independence Allowance is upheld.
18 May 2011
The Court dismissed the appeal because it cannot substitute or reframe medical impairment assessments (a matter for qualified assessors), the last valid Corporation decision remained the 21 April 2004 decision fixing an independence allowance based on 35% impairment which is not before the Court for challenge in this appeal, and it was improper to mix parts of different, inconsistent assessments to create a new apportionment; therefore the Court will not fix a new impairment rating or award a lump sum.
10 Jun 2010
The appeal was withdrawn by consent of the parties following completion of further medical assessments and an agreement to settle the issues; the court recorded the withdrawal and did not decide the substantive entitlement issues.
4 Jun 1999
The Court accepted the respondent's reassessment of the appellant's independence allowance as correct and held it lacked authority to exercise equitable jurisdiction to decide a lump sum entitlement that had not been the subject of a primary decision by the Corporation; the appellant may apply for lump sum consideration which the respondent must adjudicate.
30 Jun 1997
Leave to appeal was declined because the legal issues were settled by prior authoritative decisions: the appellant's failure to lodge the lump sum election before 1 October 1992 was fatal under s147 and estoppel/waiver does not revive the claim; no novel question of law was shown.
21 Feb 1997
The appellant failed to notify a change of address and failed to provide required submissions; the respondent reasonably closed the file; section 147(1) is unambiguous that entitlement required payment on or before 30 June 1995 (except where payment results from a review or appeal decision) and no payment was made by that date; therefore the appellant is not entitled to lump sum compensation and the appeal is dismissed.
29 May 1995
Sections 147 and 148 must be read together; s.148(3) applies to deterioration after 1 July 1992 and limits recovery to an independence allowance calculated after deducting prior lump sum compensation, so a claimant who has already received a s.119 lump sum is not entitled to a further lump sum for subsequent deterioration; appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 1994
The 3 September 1991 attendance did not constitute 'treatment' for the right wrist condition within s.7(5) because the visit was primarily for gastrointestinal illness and the handwriting remark was incidental; therefore the deemed date of accident is 8 September 1992 and the appellant is not entitled to a lump sum under the 1992 Act. Appeal dismissed.
28 Jun 1994
The engagement of the advocate was justified but the time claimed was excessive; awards under s91 are discretionary and intended as a reasonable contribution, not full costs; accordingly the respondent's offer of $250 was reasonable and was awarded.