30 Jan 2015
The appeal is dismissed because the earlier District Court decision held that ongoing symptoms from the 2007 injury were attributable to degeneration (precluding further award) and the appellant failed to produce objective, clear and compelling evidence that Dr Watts' impairment assessment was incorrect on the balance of probabilities.
16 May 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised were factual evaluations of medical evidence and assessment methodology properly conducted and peer reviewed, not questions of law; statutory assessment requirements were correctly applied and no legal error was identified.
22 Nov 2011
The Court upheld ACC's decision because Dr Walker's contemporaneous impairment assessment was peer reviewed, procedurally compliant with the AMA Guides and ACC Handbook, and the appellant failed to produce clear and cogent evidence that the 2010 assessment was flawed; identified methodological errors in the 1999 assessment justified preferring the 2010 rating of 45% WPI.
4 Oct 2011
The court accepted Dr Wright's impairment assessment as correct because it was supported by peer review and contemporaneous specialist opinion indicating clinical improvement; consequently the residual Whole Person Impairment was below the statutory threshold and the respondent's decision denying an Independence Allowance was correct.
1 Mar 2007
Dr Walker's assessment was properly conducted and peer reviewed; absent clear and cogent contrary medical evidence the Court must accept the assessor's conclusion; the assessed pre-1999 impairment (6%) was below the 10% threshold and, after deduction of the prior 30% Lump Sum, did not entitle the appellant to an Independence Allowance, therefore the respondent's decision of 10 June 2004 was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Mar 2000
The respondent validly appointed an assessor who applied the AMA Guides (4th ed.) and, supported by peer review, assessed the appellant's whole-person impairment at 5%; because the assessment complied with the statutory regime and 5% is below the 10% statutory threshold in s54, the appellant is not entitled to an independence allowance.