4 Dec 2009
The respondent's decision was correct because the uncontested, peer‑reviewed medical assessment produced a combined Whole Person Impairment which, after deducting the 29% previously compensated lump sum, left a residual below the statutory 10% threshold required for an independence allowance; therefore no entitlement existed and the appeal must be dismissed.
20 Mar 2003
Appellant failed to prove incapacity for the contested periods because there was no contemporaneous medical evidence to rebut surgeon certifications; prior binding review decisions precluded relitigation of post-December 1982 entitlement; assessed whole person impairment (10%) minus prior lump sum percentage (15%) left no compensable impairment for an independence allowance, therefore respondent's decisions were correct and appeals must be dismissed.
25 Oct 2000
The appellant failed to prove a direct consequential connection between the 1988 accidental lower back injury and the later neck/shoulder/arm symptoms because the available evidence (GP and physiotherapist opinion and delayed onset) was non-specific; unequivocal specialist evidence would be required to establish causation after such a delay, therefore the respondent's decision to exclude those injuries from cover was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Sept 2000
The assessor's 5% Whole Person Impairment rating was supported by contemporaneous specialist reports and confirmed by the Branch Medical Advisor; the appellant produced no cogent medical evidence of greater impairment or of a causal link for knee or bladder conditions to the covered injury, therefore the statutory minimum 10% WPI for an Independence Allowance was not met and the respondent's decision was correct.
12 Jul 1999
The reassessment by an approved assessor under the AMA Guides found the appellant had an 8% whole person impairment (below the 10% statutory threshold) and, in the absence of expert medical evidence demonstrating error in the assessor's application of the Guides, the Court will not disturb the respondent's decision to terminate the Independence Allowance.
1 Jun 1999
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate merit in challenging the Review Officer's decision on the independence allowance, and the appellant accepted the lack of merit; issues about provision of medical treatment are separate from the allowance entitlement and do not sustain the appeal.