30 Jun 2015
The VIMA was valid because the assessor considered the claimant's medical impairments and multi-year post-injury work history and reasonably concluded those impairments did not prevent sustaining 35 hours or more per week in the identified work types; therefore the finding of vocational independence was properly made.
29 May 2015
Dr Kelman's VIMA was fundamentally flawed because it failed to address key functional requirements of individual work types (notably the frequency of sitting) and applied inconsistent reasoning across work types; those defects undermined the assessment's credibility and justified quashing the review decision and setting aside the Corporation's vocational independence decision.
18 Dec 2013
The CRM decision was upheld because the contemporaneous VIMA by Dr Kanji, supported by the earlier IMA, established that as at 13 June 2011 the appellant had the capacity to sustain 30+ hours per week in the alarm, security or surveillance monitor and the despatch and receiving clerk work types; later medical reports describing deterioration post‑dating the VIMA could not rebut the appellant's capacity at the VIMA date and therefore did not invalidate CRM's vocational independence determination overall.