1. The Review Panel (the Panel) has been constituted by the President of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) to conduct the Review of Medical Assessor Home's assessment dated 30 September 2025 (the Review).
2. The injuries referred to Medical Assessor Home, and the subject of the review application are injuries to the cervical spine, to the lumbar spine, to both shoulders and to the right hip.
3. The Panel is scheduled to participate in the first teleconference on 12 March 2026.
4. The Review Panel refers to the Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 25 February 2026 filed on behalf of the insurer.
5. The insurer seeks leave to rely upon the following additional documents:

(a) functional report of Dr Inex Farag dated 3 December 2025;

(b) report of Dr Thomas Newlyn, psychiatrist dated 6 January 2026; and

(c) vocational report of Prof James Bright dated 4 February 2026.

1. The claimant opposes the insurer's application.

1. In relation to the requirements of rule 67C of the Personal Injury Commission Rules (the Rules) the insurer submits the documents have been provided more than 14 days before the first medical assessment.
2. The insurer submits the documents sought to be relied upon were obtained after the date on which the insurer was required to provide its bundle of documents in accordance with the direction from the Panel, that date being 6 January 2026.
3. It is submitted that granting leave would facilitate the just, quick, and cost-effective resolution of the dispute as it would prevent the possibility of a further dispute at a later date.
4. The insurer submits the documents are relevant where they will assist the assessor in calculating the claimant's pre-existing and current permanent impairment.
5. The claimant was examined by Dr Newlyn on 16 December 2025. In his report he diagnosed a somatic symptom disorder and persistent adjustment disorder. He opined that the claimant's complaints were not consistent with the injury sustained.
6. Dr Inez Farag reported that the claimant consistently displayed overt pain disorder and that the claimant's movement during formal assessment was much slower than his spontaneous pace of movement. Dr Farag reported the claimant demonstrated self-limited performance.
7. Prof Bright reported the claimant's reported limitations in respect of concentration, focus and irritability were not consistent with his ability to complete a Certificate III qualification post-accident. He reported during the interview the claimant could follow the proceedings, but when the assessment component of the interview began his demeanour changed and it was ultimately requested that the assessment be terminated.
8. The insurer submits the reports of Dr Newlyn, Dr Farag and Prof Bright are relevant to issues of consistency, noting the test of consistency will be applicable to any examination of the claimant by the Panel in accordance with clauses 6.40 and 6.41 of the Motor Accident Guidelines (the Guidelines).

1. The claimant notes the following timeline:
   • 22 April 2025 - claimant served Report of Dr James Bodel dated 11 March 2025;
   • 27 May 2025 - claimant served report of Dr Ben Teoh dated 24 April 2025;
   • 22 April 2025 - claimant asked insurer to concede greater than 10% whole person impairment (WPI);

15 July 2025 - insurer declined to concede claimant had sustained greater than 10% WPI ;

• 16 July 2025 - claimant filed application for assessment of WPI in Personal Injury Commission (Commission);
• 7 August 2025 - insurer filed reply to application for assessment of WPI;
• 26 September 2025 - date of examination by Medical Assessor Home in respect of physical injury;
• 28 October 2025 - the insurer filed an application for review of the assessment of Medical Assessor Home;
• 29 October 2025 - date of examination by Medical Assessor Walsh in respect of psychological injury;
• 10 December 2025 - the insurer served a report of Dr Andrew Keller, occupational physician dated 27 October 2025.
• 19 November 2025 - the claimant was assessed by Dr Farag at the request of the insurer;
• 16 December 2025 - the claimant was assessed by Dr Newlyn at the request of the insurer; and
• 14 January 2026 - the claimant was assessed by Prof Bright at the request of the insurer.

1. The claimant notes that the insurer did not arrange medical examinations until six months after the claimant sought a concession in respect of WPI. Further, the claimant notes that Dr Keller provided an opinion about the claimant's past, present and future fitness for work.
2. The claimant submits in seeking to introduce the report of Dr Newlyn who found a somatic symptom disorder and persistent adjustment disorder the insurer seeks to expand the scope of the medical dispute. The claimant submits the application to admit the reports of Dr Farag and Prof Bright would constitute an impermissible attempt to expand the medical dispute. Furthermore, the functional and vocational assessment reports are not relevant to the permanent impairment dispute.
3. The claimant submits the jurisdiction of the Panel is to review the material which was before the original medical assessor and not to conduct a rehearing de novo. The claimant submits the Panel is confined to reviewing the correctness of the original assessment.
4. Further it is submitted admission of the reports would cause prejudice to the claimant.

1. Firstly, the claimant's submission that the Panel is confined to reviewing the correctness of the original assessment is incorrect. Whilst an application for the referral of a medical assessment to a review panel may only be made on the grounds that the assessment was incorrect in a material respect (s7.26(2) of the MAI Act), the review of a medical assessment is not limited to a review of only that aspect of the assessment that is alleged to be incorrect and is to be by way of a new assessment of all the matters with which the medical assessment is concerned (s7.26(6) of the MAI Act).
2. The discretion to admit additional documents is governed by Rule 67C of the Rules.
3. Rule 67(1)(a) requires the documents to be served on the other party to the proceedings as soon as practicable. It seems that occurred.
4. Rules 67(1)(b)(ii) requires the documents to be lodged no later than 14 days before the medical assessment. Given the Panel is yet to schedule the medical assessment that has occurred.
5. However, where there is no written consent by the claimant to the admission of the documents the admissibility of the documents will be governed by rule 67(3) and 67(4). The documents comply with rule 67(1) as to form. In considering whether to grant leave under rule 67(3)(a)(iii) the Panel needs to be satisfied the introduction of the documents is necessary to facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

1. Firstly, the Panel notes that the insurer apparently sat on its hands; having declined to concede the claimant had sustained a WPI greater than 10% on 15 July 2025 the insurer failed to have the claimant medically examined until he saw Dr Keller on 27 October 2025. For reasons which may be explicable the insurer did not serve the report of Dr Keller until 10 December 2025.
2. In the meantime, the claimant was assessed by Medical Assessor Home on 26 September 2025 and on 2 October 2025 filed an application for review of the assessment of Medical Assessor Home.
3. The Panel notes the insurer was directed to file a bundle of documents on which it sought to rely by 6 January 2026. In submissions dated 6 January 2026 the insurer noted that complete medical records were not to hand and nor had the insurer had the benefit of medico-legal opinion. Whilst the insurer stated it reserved the right to provide further submissions on receipt of new evidence it did not foreshadow the provision of reports by Dr Farag, Dr Newlyn or Prof Bright.
4. The letter of instructions to Dr Farag was dated 13 November 2025, the assessment was on 19 November 2025, and the report was dated 3 December 2025. Dr Farag undertook a functional assessment for the purposes of assessing the claimant's capacity to return to work. Even though the insurer's bundle was not filed until 6 December 2026 the report of Dr Farag was not included in that bundle.
5. The first psychiatric assessment arranged by the insurer was with Dr Newlyn on 16 December 2025. His report is dated 5 January 2026. The insurer seeks to rely upon Dr Newlyn's report where he opined that the claimant's complaints were not consistent with the injury sustained.
6. The last and most recent assessment sought to be relied upon by the insurer is the report of Prof James Bright dated 5 February 2026. Prof Bright is an organisational psychologist, and he undertook a vocational assessment on 14 January 2026.
7. The insurer's delay is significant where the claimant has alleged prejudice. If the Panel was to admit into evidence the documents the subject of the ALAD it would be on the basis that the claimant is given an opportunity to obtain evidence in response with both parties thereafter being given an opportunity to provide further submissions. Only then would it be appropriate to arrange for the claimant to be medically examined on behalf of the Panel. Realistically this process may result in a delay of six months.

Are the documents necessary to facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective resolution of the real issues in the proceedings

1. The role of a medical review panel was summarised by Adamson JA In Allianz Australia Insurance Limited trading as Allianz v Susak[1] at [78]:

"A review panel is largely comprised of medical practitioners: its function is neither arbitral nor adjudicative; its role is neither to choose between competing arguments nor opine on other opinions on medical questions. Nor is its role to test the credibility of a claimant which it has decided, as part of its functions, to re-examine (following an initial examination by a medical assessor). It is obliged to come to its own opinion and explain its actual path of reasoning in its statement of reasons: Wingfoot at [47]."[2]

1. Clauses 6.40 and 6.41 of the Motor Accident Guidelines relating to consistency have been the subject of judicial review. In Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Bell**[3]** Price AJA concluded that the words "inconsistencies between the medical assessor's clinical findings and information obtained through medical records and/or observations of non-clinical activities" focused on the inconsistencies in the "clinical findings" and not alleged inconsistency in the history of events recorded by others, given the Review Panel's task was to apply its expertise to the medical assessment before it. In reaching this conclusion Price AJA referenced Dominence v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd[4], a dispute as to whether the claimant had suffered an injury to her shoulders attributable to a motor accident. At [109] Price AJA stated:

"Simpson JA at [61] (with whom Basten JA and Emmett AJA agreed with additional reasons) considered that cl 1.43 "offers a guard against the drawing, unfairly, of conclusions about inconsistencies detected in a claimant's presentation". Her Honour found that the medical assessor "needed to investigate the discrepancies between Ms Dominice's presentation to Dr Kenna 10 months earlier and her presentation to him, as well as the inconsistencies he noted in her presentation to him". The inconsistencies in Dominice were of clinical findings and not in prior reporting history".

1. In undertaking an assessment of permanent impairment, the Panel is only required to consider the impairment as it is at the time of the assessment in accordance with cl 6.21 of the Guidelines. The Panel considers the report of Dr Newlyn where he diagnosed a somatic symptom disorder and persistent adjustment disorder would be of little relevance to the assessment to be undertaken by the Panel of physical injuries including injuries to the cervical spine, the lumbar spine, both shoulders and the right hip. Similarly, the report of Prof Bright and his comments about the claimant's demeanour will be of little relevance to the assessment to be undertaken by the Panel as to permanent impairment. The Panel is required to come to its own opinion and having regard to Susak is not required to opine on other medical opinions.
2. The reports of Dr Newlyn and Prof Bright do not relate to the clinical findings and are only sought to be relied upon to allege there has been inconsistency in the claimant's presentation. Given the need to guard against the drawing, unfairly, of conclusions about inconsistencies in the claimant's presentation and given the opinions expressed in the report are not clinical findings relevant to the assessment of permanent impairment required to be undertaken by the Panel the Panel finds those reports are not necessary to facilitate the resolution of the real issues in the proceedings.

1. Dr Farag undertook a physical examination. She noticed inconsistencies in the claimant's clinical presentation and reported he self-limited his performance and displayed overt pain behaviour.
2. The inconsistencies noted in the claimant's presentation when examined by Dr Farag may only be of limited relevance given the Panel will form its own opinion and where it is only required to consider the impairment as it is at the time of the assessment by the Panel.
3. Where the Panel is not required to choose between competing medical opinions and where it will be undertaking its own medical examination as per Susak the Panel finds the prejudice to the claimant in allowing the insurer to rely upon the report of Dr Farag, given the delay and where it was not foreshadowed, would outweigh the probative value to the insurer if the report was admitted into evidence.

1. The Panel concludes the documents sought to be admitted are not necessary to facilitate the just, quick and cost-effective resolution of the real issue in the proceedings.
2. The Panel declines to grant leave to the insurer to rely upon the following additional reports:

(a) functional report of Dr Inex Farag dated 3 December 2025;

(b) report of Dr Thomas Newlyn, psychiatrist dated 6 January 2026; and

(c) vocational report of Prof James Bright dated 4 February 2026.

[1] Allianz Australia Insurance Limited trading as Allianz v Susak [2025] NSWCA 91

[2] Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43

[3] Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Bell [2025] NSWCA 187

[4] Dominence v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2017] NSWCA 171 at [109]