30 Aug 2007
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed seven days late, the 21 day filing period under s.162(2) is mandatory with no discretion to extend, and the appellant failed to demonstrate an arguable question of law distinct from re‑litigation of factual issues; accordingly the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave and the suspension decision remained binding.
27 Feb 2004
The statutory disentitlement in s122 Accident Insurance Act 1998 (applied by s377 IPRA 2001) bars provision of independence allowance during periods of imprisonment; therefore the appellant is not entitled to payments or credit for any independence allowance for the period he was incarcerated, though entitlement exists for the non‑custodial period prior to imprisonment.
5 Feb 2002
Dr Marshall’s assessment dated 26 June 1998 is unreliable due to failure to adhere to AMA Guides measurement standards and therefore cannot be relied upon; the respondent’s decision dated 8 July 1988 revoking the appellant’s independence allowance is formally revoked and the cost of Professor Burry’s report is to be reimbursed to the appellant.
6 Aug 1999
Leave to appeal was refused because the impugned decision was a finding of fact (the 7% whole person impairment) made on evidence and in accordance with the AMA Guides and Regulations, there was no question of law identified and s.97 requires error in point of law for leave, therefore leave was properly refused.
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.
21 Dec 1998
The assessor's 7% whole person impairment, conducted pursuant to the AMA Guides (IV Edition) and confirmed by the Branch Medical Advisor, produced an impairment below the statutory 10% threshold; therefore the Corporation's decision to cease the independence allowance was correct and must be upheld.
4 Dec 1998
Because the 1997 Regulations required an objective assessment under the AMA guides and the independent assessor complied with that regime producing a 7% impairment (below the 10% threshold), the appellant ceased to qualify for the independence allowance and the Court has no power to overturn that regulated medical assessment; appeal dismissed.
29 Sept 1998
Section 27(2)(b) must be read with s54A(3): the effective date for an increased independence allowance is the later of commencement or the date of a certificate verifying an increase in impairment certified after the last reassessment; only the 22 September 1997 certificate qualified, so the increase takes effect from that date.