Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd

Campton v Centennial Newstan Pty Ltd - [2014] NSWSC 304 - NSWSC 2014 case summary — Zoe

Medical Reports 7On 24 February 2014 the plaintiff tendered a bundle of documents entitled "Plaintiff's Medical Reports" (Exhibit "A"). This bundle contains, amongst others, the reports of the plaintiff's treating doctors, including in particular those of his treating general practitioner, Dr Whittaker, and his neurosurgeon/spinal surgeon, Dr Ferch. Exhibit "A" includes: (1)Reports of Dr Damien Whittaker dated: (a)6 August 2010 (b)28 October 2010 (c)5 September 2011 (d)20 December 2011 (e)16 May 2012 (f)12 August 2013 (g)5 September 2013 (h)16 February 2014 (2)Report of Dr M Edger dated 23 August 2010. (3)Reports of Dr R Ferch dated: (a)5 August 2010 (b)7 September 2010 (c)20 September 2010 (d)26 October 2010 (e)29 March 2011 (f)28 April 2011 (g)20 March 2012 (h)5 April 2012 (i)28 June 2012 (j)5 July 2012 (k)25 July 2012 (l)3 August 2012 (m)13 November 2012 (n)14 March 2013 (o)27 March 2013 (p)15 April 2013 (q)20 August 2013 (r)21 May 2013 (s)9 July 2013 (4)Reports of Dr John MF Grant AO OBE, Consultant Neurosurgeon dated: (a)3 June 2011 (b)26 April 2012 (c)29 August 2012 (d)29 November 2012 (5)Reports of Dr Barry C Bracken (who participated in the orthopaedic conclave) dated: (a)27 July 2011 (b)3 May 2013 (c)16 August 2013 (d)28 August 2013 (e)13 September 2013 (6)Reports of Dr AG Hopcroft (who participated in the orthopaedic and diabetes conclaves) dated: (a)1 September 2011 (b)4 April 2013 (c)22 July 2013 (d)30 August 2013 (e)24 October 2013 8Pursuant to directions made on 10 March 2014, the defendant has provided a copy of the medical reports upon which they propose to rely, namely: (1)Dr FJ Harvey, 30 October 2012 (x2) (2)Dr Harvey, 26 November 2012 (x2) (3)Dr Leonard Lee, Consultant Medico-Legal Psychiatrist, 28 August 2013 (4)Dr Harvey, 16 September 2013 (x2) (5)Dr Ivan Thomas Lorentz, Consultant Neurologist, 16 September 2013 (6)Dr Lorentz, 19 September 2013 (7)Dr Harvey, 20 September 2013 (8)Dr Myles RJ Coolican, Orthopaedic Surgeon, 20 September 2013 (9)Dr Coolican, 11 October 2013 (10)Dr Harvey, 14 October 2013 (11)Dr Harvey, 18 October 2013 (12)Dr Coolican, 24 October 2013 (13)Dr Coolican, 9 January 2014 (14)Dr Coolican, 4 February 2014

[4]

History of the Conclave Reports 14On 23 July 2013 Garling J made orders as follows: "4. Direct that the evidence of the liability experts take place concurrently. 5. Order the liability experts to meet and prepare a joint report setting out issues agreed and issues disagreed by 13/9/13. 6. Order that the plaintiff is to serve all further expert medical evidence upon which he proposes to rely by 4pm 30/8/13. 7. Order the defendant to serve all expert medical evidence upon which it proposes to rely by 4pm 20/9/13. 8. Direct that the medical experts are to give their evidence concurrently. 9. Direct that the medical experts are to meet in joint conference and prepare a joint report setting out all matters upon which they are agreed and matters upon which they are disagreed, such joint report to be provided to the parties and to the Court by 4pm 11/10/13..." 15Subsequent orders were made by Registrar Bradford on 28 January 2014 relating to the conduct of the conclave, including: (1)An order that Dr Whittaker is to attend the conclave. (2)The defendant is to file and serve a statement of issues in dispute by 3/02/2014. (3)As to the diabetes conclave: (a)The plaintiff's questions as set out in letter dated 19/12/2013 to go to conclave as well as defendant's question for the Diabetes conclave being pages 16-20 attached to Annexure "G" to Mr Grimes affidavit. (4)As to the orthopaedic conclave: (a)The plaintiff's questions are to be sent to the conclave, as set out in Annexure "C" to the affidavit of Mr Grimes. (b)In addition to the documents to be provided to the doctors on the orthopaedic conclave, a joint memorandum of issues in dispute is to be provided by 3 February 2014. (c)Defendant question not allowed. (5)As to the vocational conclave: (a)The plaintiff's questions are to be sent to the conclave in accordance with Annexure "D" to the affidavit of Mr Grimes. (b)The defendant's question not allowed. 16In total, there were four conclaves: (1)An orthopaedic conclave, convened on 7 February 2014 and attended by Dr Bracken, Dr Harvey, Dr Hopcroft, and Dr Millons. (2)A diabetes conclave, convened on 6 February 2014 and attended by Dr Hopcroft, Dr Lorentz, and Dr Whittaker. (3)An occupational therapists conclave, convened on 17 February 2014 and attended by Ms Ravagnani and Ms Hughes. (4)A vocational conclave, convened on 7 February 2014 and attended by Mr Ravagnani and Mr Bass. 17Each conclave produced a separate joint expert report. Each of these reports, together with associated correspondence, were tendered on 24 February 2014 and comprise the documents in Exhibit "B". They were tendered subject to the issue of admissibility being finally determined on a subsequent date. I will refer to the reports collectively as the "conclave reports". 18At a directions hearing on 21 February 2014 Mr Joseph SC for the defendant indicated that he would object to the admissibility of the conclave reports. 19On 27 February 2014, I directed the parties to provide written submissions on this issue. 20Mr Joseph and Mr Stanton provided the "Defendant's Submissions on Orthopaedic Conclave Report" dated 5 March 2014 ("Defendant's Submissions"). Mr Dooley SC and Mr O'Rourke provided the "Plaintiff's Outline of Submissions in Respect of Admissibility of Conclave Reports" dated 4 March 2014 ("Plaintiff's Submissions"). 21On 17 March 2014, Mr Joseph referred to the fact that since preparing his written submissions, he had become aware of the judgments in the following cases: X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (No 4) [2011] NSWSC 1310, (No 5) [2011] NSWSC 1351, (No 6) [2011] NSWSC 1353; Collins v Sydney Ports Corporation [2012] NSWSC 115; Turjman v Stonewall Hotel Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 392 and Goddard v Central Coast Health Network [2013] NSWSC 1932. 22The transcript records: "Mr Joseph submitted that insofar as the rules sought to avoid those fundamental rights in the adversarial system, the rules should be disregarded or ignored and that the rules were therefore arguably ultra vires of the Court to bypass ss 55 and 56 and common law associated with those decisions. He referred his Honour to the case of Makita": T521, 17 March 2014. 23Mr Joseph did not, however, analyse the reasons for the decisions referred to above, or modify or withdraw any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant in its written submissions referred to in [20] above. 24The contents of these submissions will be addressed below.

[5]

(a) Joint Expert Reports 25The relevant rules relating to conclaves and joint expert reports are found in UCPR Pt 31, Division 2, "Provisions Applicable to Expert Evidence Generally", in particular UCPR 31.24-31.26. 26Rule 31.17 sets out the main purposes of the Division, which include: "(a) to ensure that the court has control over the giving of expert evidence, (b) to restrict expert evidence in proceedings to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, (c) to avoid unnecessary costs associated with parties to proceedings retaining different experts, (d) if it is practicable to do so without compromising the interests of justice, to enable expert evidence to be given on an issue in proceedings by a single expert engaged by the parties or appointed by the court, (e) if it is necessary to do so to ensure a fair trial of proceedings, to allow for more than one expert (but no more than are necessary) to give evidence on an issue in the proceedings..." 27The provisions of sub-rules (a), (b) and (c) are of particular importance to the defendant's application to exclude the conclave reports and to the medical evidence more generally in these proceedings. 28Under r 31.24(1), the Court is empowered to direct expert witnesses to confer and "(c) to prepare a joint report, specifying matters agreed and matters not agreed and reasons for any disagreement, and "(d) to base any joint report on specified facts or assumptions of fact". 29Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 31.26(2) requires any joint report subsequently prepared by experts must specify matters agreed and matters not agreed and the reasons for any disagreement. 30Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 31.26(3) provides, "The joint report may be tendered at the trial as evidence of any matters agreed". However, the report must still be admitted into evidence "in the ordinary way": Practice Note SC Gen 11, clause 34. 31Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 31.26(4) provides: "In relation to any matters not agreed, the joint report may be used or tendered at the trial only in accordance with the rules of evidence and the practices of the court." 32Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 31.26(5) also provides: "Except by leave of the court, a party affected may not adduce evidence from any other expert witness on the issues dealt with in the joint report."

[6]

(b) The Practice Notes 33The Practice Notes also offer guidance on concurrent evidence and the preparation of joint expert reports. 34Practice Note SC CL 5 relates to expert evidence, and states that: "32. The Court is concerned about the number of experts often expected to give evidence in personal injury cases. The practice of having a large number of experts qualified, both medical and otherwise, whose opinions may be overlapping and whose reports either are not used or are of little assistance to the Court when tendered, is costly, time consuming and productive of delay." 35Practice Note SC CL 5 provides that "all expert evidence will be given concurrently unless there is a single expert appointed or the Court grants leave for expert evidence to be given in an alternate manner": clause 37. 36Practice Note SC Gen 11 is entitled "Joint Conferences of Expert Witnesses". 37Clause 5 of Practice Note SC Gen 11 states that the objectives of a joint conference of experts include the following: (1)The just, quick and cost effective disposal of the proceedings; (2)The identification and narrowing of issues in the proceedings, given the joint report may be tendered by consent as evidence of matters agreed and/or to identify and limit the issues on which contested expert evidence will be called; (3)The consequential shortening of the trial and enhanced prospects of settlement; (4)Apprising the Court of the issues for determination; (5)Binding experts to their position on issues, thereby enhancing certainty as to how the expert evidence will come out at the trial; (6)Avoiding or reducing the need for experts to attend court to give evidence. 38This Practice Note must be provided to the experts (clause 10), and instructs the experts as to the requirements of their joint report, specifically: "25. Pursuant to UCPR Rule 31.25 and paragraph 4 of the Code, the report should specify matters agreed and matters not agreed and the reasons for non agreement. ... 28. The report should be set out in numbered paragraphs and should be divided into the following sections: · statement of agreed opinion in respect of each matter calling for report; · statement of matters not agreed between experts with short reasons why agreement has not been reached; · statement in respect of which no opinions could be given e.g. issues involving credibility of testimony; · any suggestion by the participating experts as to any other matter which they believe could usefully be submitted to them for their opinion; and · disclosure of any circumstances by reason of which an expert may be unable to give impartial consideration to the matter." 39Practice Note SC Gen 11 foreshadows that a joint expert may be cross-examined at a trial if an expert seeks to depart from what was agreed: clause 5.

[7]

The Respective Contentions on Behalf of the Parties 40Mr Joseph submitted that "given all the limitations concerning the conclave, the most effective way forward is the [sic] have concurrent evidence on all expert matters, and disregard the conclave reports": Defendant's Submissions at p3, [12]. 41As to the question of the admissibility of the conclave reports generally, Mr Joseph's submissions may be summarised as follows: (1)The experts were not provided with a joint statement of assumptions, apparently contrary to clause 10 of Practice Note SC Gen 11. (2)The joint reports did not contain an acknowledgement that the experts had read and agreed to be bound by the Expert Witness Code of Conduct. (3)The questions asked of the conclave were too broad, which in turn resulted in vague and/or meaningless answers. (4)The answers provided by the conclave contained only opinions, not reasons. (5)The conclave failed to identify what it relied upon when giving its opinions. (6)The conclave considered extraneous material, which amounted to an irrelevant consideration. (7)Given the credit of the plaintiff has been so clearly challenged, as has his conflicting histories given to doctors, the strength of any opinion must be tested against this issue by concurrent evidence. 42Mr Joseph also made submissions relating to the admissibility of each of the conclave reports specifically. 43Mr Dooley submitted the Court should direct that all parties be directed to the conclave evidence, and that no further medical evidence be taken orally: Plaintiff's Submissions at [71]. 44In support, Mr Dooley noted the following matters: "2. Principles behind the requirement for full exposition of thought process and reliance on expertise include: (a) Court may not be able to understand opinions so as to decide the weight to accord it. (b) Court not able to assess whether it corresponds to facts which the Court finds at the end of trial. (c) Court will not be able to assess whether opinion is one wholly or substantially based on expert's knowledge. (d) Unacceptable difficulties for cross-examiner, who should not have to perform in the dark or engage in a "task of teasing out in cross-examination all the circumstances witness had in mind". (e) Cross-examining party not to be left in a disadvantage in deciding whether and how to meet the evidence. 3. Bearing this in mind, the approach to the joint reports should be properly viewed in the following circumstances: (a) To look at the joint report in the context of the expert's individual reports each of the doctors have prepared in relation to the matter. (b) That the questions posed to the doctors are those which were determined by order of the court after argument by both parties. (c) That there is no substantial difference in the opinion of all the doctors as to the cause of injury, the disabling effect of injury and incapacity (except to extent). 4. Each of the doctors has an accurate history of injury. 5. Thereafter the doctors have been provided with a history of treatment and complaints which is entirely uncontroversial and unaffected by any of the evidence to date. 6. In the determination of final diagnosis, each of the doctors go through a similar process. 7. Dr Hopcroft in his report of 1 September 2011 (p102-106) sets out the history, examination, a review of the radiological information and opines; 'This patient has suffered a significant aggravation to a low grade pre-existent asymptomatic lumbar spondylitic condition by way of work related injury in which he incurred acute wedge compression fracturing of L2 and L3 with narrowing of the L2/3 disc, and L4/5 disc protrusion to the left with left sided sciatica. Those injuries are entirely consistent with the mechanism of the injury.' 8. Dr Bracken in his report of 27 July 2011 goes through a similar process set out at p5 (Exhibit A p100) and in addition in his report of 16 August 2013 at p4 (Exhibit A p153) confirming that the plaintiff not only aggravated and accelerated degenerative changes at multi levels in his low back but also caused a disc prolapse at the left side of the L4/5 with conduction defect at L5 nerve root. The doctor thereafter sets out the surgical history. 9. Dr Harvey in his report of 16 September 2013 goes through the history until post fusion and p6.8 sets out the effect of the spinal fusion but does not set it out in the same detail as Drs Bracken and Hopcroft; although in his report of 30 October 2012 at p7 he sets out his views on causation. ... 28. The factual basis of each of the experts' reports has been established. 29. In the circumstances of this case, the factual basis of all the medical reports is accepted and remains unchallenged. 30. The mechanism of the injury remains unchallenged. 31. The nature and extent of disability remains unchallenged. 32. The only differential the court may need to consider is whether it should be properly defined as a 'structural injury' as distinct from 'aggravation of degenerative changes'."

[16]

(ii) Common Law Statement of Reasoning Rule 78In Dasreef, Heydon J stated that s 79 of the Evidence Act left the statement of reasoning rule intact and, accordingly, an expert's report which did not reveal the expert's reasoning would not be admissible under s 79, even though the opinion fell within the specialised knowledge of the expert: at [129]-[130]. 79Adamson J, following consideration of the High Court's judgment in Dasreef, observed: "...I consider that UCPR 31.26(3) and (4) are not invalid in so far as they provide that experts need not provide reasons for agreement. In any event, to the extent to which s 79 applies, I do not consider that it excludes a report prepared in accordance with the UCPR, notwithstanding that no reasons for agreement are required. The joint report is authorised by the UCPR and there is no relevant inconsistency by reference to which UCPR 31.26(3) and (4) would be rendered invalid. The common law rule can be abrogated by statute. Even though Heydon J found that it had not been abrogated by s 79 of the Evidence Act , I consider that it has been, to the limited extent described above, in respect of joint expert reports prepared in accordance with the UCPR": at [35] (emphasis added). 80Her Honour in so determining the operation of the joint expert report provisions, relied upon the following matters: (1)The statement of reasoning rule must be read in the context of the Civil Procedure Act, Evidence Act, and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. (2)The statement of reasoning rule is excluded by UCPR 31.24(1)(c) and 31.26(2) because these rules plainly contemplate that experts are not required to give reasons where there is agreement. (3)Section 190(3) of the Evidence Act provides that a court in a civil proceeding may order that one or more of the provisions in s 190(1) (which includes s 79) do not apply in relation to evidence if relevantly, the application of those provisions would cause of involve unnecessary expense or delay. (4)The requirements of s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act. (5)The objectives of joint conferences, as contained in clause 5 of Practice Note SC Gen 11. 81It was argued for the defendant in that case: "...the reports are prepared under the time pressure of the court system and also of the experts themselves, who can be expected to have other professional commitments. To require reasons to be given for agreement would not only be expensive and time-consuming but it might have the tendency to inhibit the process, and perhaps to deter participation by experts": at [33]. 82This observation finds support in the reasons of Harrison J in Gillett v Robinson [2011] NSWSC 1143, wherein his Honour stated: "...In any event, the experts are not required to give reasons in circumstances where they agree. This seems to be apparent from UCPR 31.26(2) indicating that a joint report "must specify matters agreed and matters not agreed and the reasons for any disagreement": at [45]. 83Further, with regard to r 31.26, Ritchie's Uniform Civil Procedure NSW notes that: "...the rule probably assumes that the experts statement of agreement is in fact a conclusion based on specialised knowledge for the purposes of s 79 of the Evidence Act, and for that reason dispenses with any additional requirement that their reasoning process be expressly articulated in the joint report": at [31.26.10].

[17]

(iii) The Makita Principle 84The Makita principle was articulated by Heydon JA in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705: "In short, if evidence tendered as expert opinion evidence is to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is a field of "specialised knowledge"; there must be an identified aspect of that field in which the witness demonstrates that by reason of specified training, study or experience, the witness has become an expert; the opinion proffered must be "wholly or substantially based on the witness's expert knowledge"; so far as the opinion is based on facts "observed" by the expert, they must be identified and admissibly proved by the expert, and so far as the opinion is based on "assumed" or "accepted" facts, they must be identified and proved in some other way; it must be established that the facts on which the opinion is based form a proper foundation for it; and the opinion of an expert requires demonstration or examination of the scientific or other intellectual basis of the conclusions reached: that is, the expert's evidence must explain how the field of "specialised knowledge" in which the witness is expert by reason of "training, study or experience", and on which the opinion is "wholly or substantially based", applies to the facts assumed or observed so as to produce the opinion propounded": at 744. 85In X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (No 5), the defendant submitted that the joint reports were nonetheless admissible for the reasons outlined in respect of the common law statement of reasons rule. In the alternative, it was submitted that the requirements of Makita were satisfied when the expert reports and the joint reports are read together. 86Although Adamson J did not consider it necessary to determine the alternative argument by virtue of her Honour's reasons in respect of the submissions on the common law statement of reasons rule, her Honour observed: "Mr Kirk emphasised that the First and Second Joint Reports were produced in the context of exchange of medical reports and following agreement of the questions to be posed of the experts in the joint conferences. He submitted that the experts, in the joint conferences, discussed the questions with each other to seek to find agreement. That the agreement may be recorded in a simple one-word answer does not make it devoid of reasons because the answer is to be seen in the context of the prior reports. Mr Kirk submitted that one can infer that the agreement reflects the reasons of the expert or experts whose original reports contended for the answer which was ultimately agreed to be the correct one. I consider there to be significant force in the alternative argument": at [55]-[56].

[19]

Discretion to Exclude Evidence Under s 135 of the Evidence Act 89Section 135 of the Evidence Act confers a general discretion on courts to refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger the evidence might: (1)Be unfairly prejudicial to a party; or (2)Be misleading or confusing; or (3)Cause or result in undue waste of time. 90Alternatively, if there is a risk of the evidence being unfairly prejudicial or misleading or confusing, the court is also empowered to limit the use of that evidence: s 136. 91Joint expert reports are liable to exclusion under s 135: Barescape Pty Ltd v Bacchus Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1002 at [3] (per Black J). 92I do not consider any basis at all has been established that would properly require the exercise of the discretion under s 135 to exclude the conclave reports. 93Those joint reports directly assist the court in its mandatory obligations under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act, as well as upholding one of the purposes of UCPR Division 2, namely: "to restrict expert evidence in proceedings to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings": UCPR r 31.17(a). In these proceedings the conclave reports express agreement between specified members of the conclaves and, as required by UCPR r 31.26(2), identify matters of disagreement. In those respects the joint reports achieve several of the "purposes" expressed in UCPR, r 31.17. 94With regard to whether the conclave reports could be considered unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, they are not, of course, "unfair" merely because one or more may tend to damage the case of a party or support the case of an opponent: Ainsworth v Burden [2005] NSWCA 174. 95Section 135, as explained by the Australian Law Reform Commission, is directed towards "whether there is a real risk that the evidence will be misused", or "the danger that the fact-finder may use the evidence to make a decision on an improper, perhaps emotional, basis ie on a basis logically unconnected with the issues in the case": ALRC Report 102, "Uniform Evidence Law" (2006), [16.24]. 96In considering whether the evidence could be "misleading or confusing" so as to warrant exclusion, the following observation was made by Campbell J in Re GHI (a Protected Person) [2005] NSWCA 466: "As to section 135(b), there is something bizarre in submitting to a judge sitting alone that he or she should reject evidence on the ground that it might mislead or confuse him or her. I propose to trust myself, so far as that is concerned": at [8]. 97In fact, Adamson J in X v Sydney Children's Hospitals Specialty Network (No 5) found there to be "considerable force" in the submission that far from it being unfair to admit the conclave report: "...it would be unfair to reject it, in circumstances where the Court proposed to admit the individual reports of the experts who had participated in the joint conferences, since on several occasions consensus had been reached in the joint conference which would not be apparent from reading the individual reports which preceded the joint conferences...I accept that it would be potentially misleading to admit evidence which reflected an expert's historical view, which had changed in the light of discussion which had been not only authorised and agreed to by the parties, but also mandated by the Court": at [65]. 98Her Honour proceeded to consider that, with regard to whether the admission of the report would result in an undue waste of time: "Far from saving time, what the Plaintiff proposed would not only consume substantially greater court time but it would also set at nought the time consuming and expensive process in which the parties have engaged to get to the point of the preparation and finalisation of the [report]": at [68]. 99On the same basis, and for the same reasons, I consider it would not at all be unfairly prejudicial to the defendant to admit the conclave reports. 100Additionally, I note that the defendant has had the benefit of cross-examining both treating doctors, Dr Whittaker and Dr Ferch, and as well as cross-examining Dr Hopcroft and Dr Bracken and adducing further evidence from Dr Harvey during concurrent evidence taken on 19 March 2014 and 21 March 2014. 101Accordingly, this is not a case which, as the evidence presently stands, would require the exercise of discretion to exclude the conclave reports.

[25]

(b) The Orthopaedic Opinions in the Joint Report 113The joint expert report of the orthopaedic surgeons recorded the following matters of agreement: (i) Drs Hopcroft and Bracken agreed that the MRI scan showed quite clearly a very large L4/5 left sided disc protrusion. It also showed some bulging of the L2/3 disc and he also had some pre-existent of the spondylitic change: p 4. Dr Millons stated that, "we need to look at the cause and effect. The cause was that the plaintiff was bounced around and the pain in his back and his left sciatica came straight from that so therefore something has happened at that time": p 4. Dr Harvey did not think that the disc protrusions referred to by Drs Hopcroft and Bracken were a direct result of the accident. He thinks that they could have been rendered symptomatic by that and he then referred to the degenerative process aggravated by the accident. (ii) All experts were in agreement that the accident on 1 July 2010 gave rise to the need for surgery performed by Dr Ferch, being microdiscectomy rhizolysis: p 4. The experts agreed that because the outcome of the surgery was not as expected, the plaintiff continued to have disabling left-sided sciatic foot drop and that he ultimately came to double level fusion with spaces inserted: p 4. Dr Harvey did not think that those protrusions were a direct result of the accident. He thinks they could have been rendered symptomatic by it: p 4. Dr Bracken expressed strong disagreement with the opinion of Dr Harvey. He stated that in the greater sum of cases "... this stems from a traumatic event": p 5. (iii) The experts expressed the joint opinion that there was impairment and that as a consequence the plaintiff's spinal fusion he would have difficulty with keeping at work, and that he would be unfit for work which involved heavy lifting and/or bending: p 6. 114In relation to the differences of opinion, the following matters, inter alia, were recorded:

Dr Hopcroft believed that if you fused two segments of a spine with the pathology in question, taking into account changes at L2/3 level, the changes at L2/3 can deteriorate more rapidly simply by the fusion: p 6.
Dr Millons agreed with Dr Hopcroft and believed that based on what is stated in the previous dot point there would be "little chance that the plaintiff would be able to do any work at all really": p 6.
Dr Millons stated that the plaintiff was 62 years old, that he has had "failed back surgery" and "a wonky L2/3 disc and on that sort of history, there's not a lot really that this man's going to be able to do". He noted that he never saw the DVD of the plaintiff: p 6.
Dr Bracken was of the opinion that the plaintiff was unemployable, and that "he would definitely be unfit for his previous work duties in a coal mine. As far as any alternative related work, he doesn't think he could qualify for any of it."
Dr Harvey disagreed with the above statements by Drs Hopcroft, Millons and Bracken. He did not think the plaintiff would be completely unemployable. He saw a DVD in which the plaintiff was undertaking his activities on a day and he was moving fairly freely doing various things. He thinks he would be fit for light work, but is quite happy to accept that he wouldn't be fit for heavy work which involved much lifting or bending: p 6. 115In relation to the plaintiff's capacity for employment, the joint report records: "AH, DM and BB agree that the plaintiff would be unemployable on his history. FH believes that he would be fit for light duties": p 7.

[26]

(ii) The Diabetes Conclave 116On 6 February 2014, a joint expert report was signed by Dr Alan G Hobergh, Dr Damien Whittaker and Dr Ivan T Lorentz. Dr Lorentz was retained by the defendant. He has not examined the plaintiff and relied upon material referred to in his reports. 117The members of the diabetes conclave expressed their unanimous agreement on several matters and included additional comments on matters to which the joint report relates. 118The following matters are recorded in the joint report: (1)That it was unanimously agreed that the symptoms of which the plaintiff complains on the balance of probability is far more likely to have been a consequence of the injury to his spine sustained on 1 July 2010 and not to his "sub-optimally controlled diabetes": at [4]. (2)It was unanimously considered by the members that on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff's Type 2 diabetes will have no impact on his future employment and to the plaintiff's express desire to work until the age of 70 and has had no effect on his employment in the past: at [6]. (3)It was unanimously accepted that "increasing numbness of the left leg" is rare in insulin-dependent diabetes and less so in Type 2 diabetic patients, but is extremely common in patients whose lumbar spinal pathology had been radiologically proven as in the plaintiff's case: at [15]. (4)It was unanimously accepted that unilateral foot drop is a rare symptom in diabetes but common in spinal injuries with proved nerve root compression from discal prolapse: at [18]. (5)It was unanimously accepted that the plaintiff's diabetic status would not have been a cause of his inability to return to his previous employment as an underground coal miner as he had no constant symptoms of peripheral neuropathy before his back injury and controlled or sub-optimally controlled diabetes mellitus does not prevent a patient from working in underground mining: at [20(f)]. (6)In relation to the multiple symptoms listed under question 21, it was stated that it was "universally accepted" that the symptoms were far more in keeping with a proximal nerve root compression than of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: at [21(b)]. (7)It was "universally accepted" that the symptoms were probably not caused by his diabetes and it was far more likely they were probably caused by his back pathology and left L5 nerve root compression with intermittent effects on the right side: at [21(c)]. (8)It was "universally accepted" that the plaintiff's diabetes will not limit his work capacity considering that he would have worked to 65 or 70 had he not injured his back. It was universally accepted that he is currently not fit for his normal occupation of an underground miner and that that capacity is not due to his diabetes melitis but due to the significant residual problems he suffers from his back injury and surgery and nerve root compromise. It was universally accepted that his diabetes melitis will not affect his capacity to undertake domestic activities inside and outside his home but that his spinal pathology would. It was unpredictable whether his diabetes melitis would ever affect his ability to undertake domestic activities inside and outside his home and was dependent on how long the plaintiff lived: at [23]. (9)It was "universally accepted" that the answer to this question was that this patient had a radiological proven cause of his left foot drop, namely an L4/5 lateralised major disc protrusion and that it unilaterality dismisses the likelihood of diabetes in the plaintiff causing the problem: at [25]. 119The joint report sets out, on the basis stated at [8], a series of answers to questions at 9 to 32 of the joint report. All documents supplied to the conclave were read by the members of the conclave: at [33]. 120The joint report records the unanimous agreement of the members of the conclave on specific aspects in the above band of questions including, in particular at [20] and [25]. The answers to those questions display a detailed consideration to each. Specific comments by one or members of the conclave are recorded by way of additional explanatory comments. 121The diabetes conclave report fulfils the purpose to be served by the joint report rules which is to determine the (medical) matters and issues upon which the experts agree and to record any that are not subject of agreement. This is precisely what the members of the conclave, all eminently qualified, did in the subject conclave and joint report. 122The matters and issues upon which they agreed dealt with all that were central to the plaintiff's claims in the proceedings and arising on the defendant's Amended Defence. Those included the specific disabilities that are referable solely to the plaintiff's diabetes and to the issue as to whether his diabetic condition would have adversely affected or limited his working life to at least 70 years. 123I do not here refer to each criticism set out in the defendant's submissions in relation to the conclave report. The submissions for the defendant do not extend to demonstrating how or on what basis such matters could provide a foundation for either challenging the joint report as a report that falls within the conclave provisions nor how they go to admissibility nor to the exercise of the discretion under s 135 of the Evidence Act. I state immediately, notwithstanding the multitude of matters raised in the defendant's submissions, they do not establish invalidity, inadmissibility whether in terms of the exclusion provisions in s 135 or otherwise. 124It is not to be overlooked that in the agreed position between the members of the conclave, the defendant's chosen expert, Dr Lorentz, expressed his opinion by participating in the unanimous agreement on the matters recorded in the joint report. 125There is no basis for the application to exclude the joint report. The application to exclude the diabetes conclave joint report from evidence is refused.

[27]

(iii) Vocational Assessment Conclave 126On Friday, 7 February 2014, Mark Ravagnani and Sebastian Bass participated in a joint conference. 127On 20 February 2014, a joint expert report was produced arising from the conclave. 128The report identifies the material available to the members of a conclave. They stated, at page 5, that they were not qualified to offer an opinion on the medical aspects of the plaintiff's claim but accepts that he sustained injury involving the lumbar spine, as specified in the joint report. 129The members of the conclave stated that there were no differences in their opinion regarding the plaintiff's injuries, symptomatology and disabilities: p 5. 130Both experts agreed that the plaintiff had suffered a significant career disruption and a lasting vocational disability as a result of his injuries, insofar as he was unable to return to his pre-injury job: p 6. 131Both agreed that a limited subset of the sales and service employment options provided by Mr Bass may be potentially suitable occupational alternatives: p 6. However, they disagreed on the plaintiff's "realistic chances of gaining such employment". 132The differences were set out at pages 6-7 of the report. Mr Ravagnani expressed the view that the plaintiff would not secure or maintain full or part-time employment now or in the future. Further, he also expressed his view that it was highly unlikely that he would find an employer willing to provide him with light part-time work suitable to him. 133Mr Ravagnani then set out his reasons for his opinion. 134Mr Bass is of the opinion that the vocations that were referred to in his report of 11 October 2012 were "entry-level jobs". It was noted that the plaintiff's "solid work history and overall presentation" was such as to likely satisfy a potential employer concerning reliability. It was noted that the plaintiff "... presents as a man who is 'as good as his word'": p 7. 135He suggested that employers of delivery drivers require reliable employees and the plaintiff would be able to fulfil the requirements of such jobs and that there are employers who prefer mature and reliable workers: p 7. 136In the Defendant's Submissions, it is stated: "21. This conclave suffers from of the vices identified above": p 5. 137The brief submissions then refer to a number of matters including questions 2, 3 and 4, and criticise the way they are framed. 138There were also further criticisms made as to the absence of any identification of "assumptions" referred to. 139Insofar as the defendants rely upon the "vices" ventilated in respect of the orthopaedic conclave report, my assessment and disposition of those matters equally applies in determining the vocational assessment conclave report. I do not consider that the matters otherwise raised in the defendant's written submissions at [22]-[26] provide any basis upon which either the validity of the joint report or its admissibility is adversely affected. 140The defendant's submissions again do not address how it is suggested, and upon what basis any of the matters referred to in its written submissions either render the joint report inadmissible, nor does the defendant identify any basis upon which the proper exercise of the discretion under s 135 ought be exercised. 141There is no basis for the exclusion of the joint conclave report.

[28]

(iv) Occupational Therapists Conclave 142On Monday 17 February 2014, the joint conference was held between Susan Ravagnani and Claire Hughes. 143A joint report was produced dated 18 February 2014. 144The report identifies the documentation that was available to assist the conclave: p 2. 145The report specifies agreement as to the nature of the lumbar spinal injuries and the surgical interventions carried out on the plaintiff on 13 September 2010 and 8 April 2013. 146Both members of the conclave set out their agreement on the residual symptoms and disabilities that apply to the plaintiff: p 3. It was noted that Ms Hughes had not assessed the plaintiff since he underwent his second surgical procedure. Ms Ravagnani reassessed him on 6 August 2013. 147The members of the conclave expressed no differences in opinion regarding the plaintiff's injuries, symptomatology and disabilities. 148Both agreed on the requirement for assistance with his personal care consequent upon the injuries sustained in the accident, but disagreed on the extent of assistance and duration required: p 4. 149In relation to the first 12 weeks following surgery in 2013, the total hours were essentially agreed, that is 45 hours of assistance with personal care tasks following surgery of April 2013: p 4. However, Ms Ravagnani is also of the opinion that the plaintiff also required assistance for a further six months while he continued to recover. 150As to the differences in relation to assistance with personal care tasks, these are addressed in the report at page 5. Each member of the conclave then specifies the basis for and calculations of the extent of assistance required following surgery on 13 September 2010 and post-spinal fusion in April 2013. 151The differences in calculation accordingly are set out in the joint report at pp 5-6. 152The issue of "Past Care - Domestic Assistance" is similarly discussed on the basis that both agreed that the plaintiff had a requirement for assistance with internal domestic activities following the accident after each surgical intervention. However, they expressed their disagreement on the extent of assistance and duration required as set out on those pages of the joint report. 153Each member of the conclave then addressed the issue of the requirement for assistance with external domestic activities in a similar manner. 154The differences are clearly stated and the calculations resulting from those differences are set out in the joint report. 155So far as "Future/Ongoing Assistance - Personal Care" is concerned, the members of the conclave set out their opinion in terms that, assuming the plaintiff's functional capacity remains unchanged, he requires no ongoing personal care assistance. 156The members of the conclave then address a situation if there should be deterioration in the future. 157As to "Future/Ongoing Assistance - Domestic Tasks", both members of the conclave agreed that the plaintiff was likely to continue to require assistance with the heavy internal domestic tasks and all external domestic tasks, but disagreed with the extent of assistance required. Each sets out the differences and the resultant calculations. 158The report then separately deals with the agreement and areas of disagreement in relation to "treatment & exercise", "equipment" and "accommodation requirements". 159In the defendant's submissions it was contended that the questions to the conclave were not part of any order by Registrar Bradford. However, both experts were retained respectively by the plaintiff and the defendant and had issued previous reports which were available to the parties. 160It is customary in personal injury litigation cases where there is no issue that the plaintiff suffered significant injury and was required to undergo surgery, that the assessment of functional capacity falls within the expertise of occupational therapists. The evidence of such experts assists the Court in determining the requirements for support or care in a particular case and the need for equipment and other support mechanisms. It is the common experience of this Court that the legal representatives of the parties, based on occupational therapists reports, produce agreed schedules as to rates, hours etc, leaving the Court to determine only those residual issues, if any, upon which agreement cannot be reached. In this way the Court time and costs of the parties are minimised. 161The conclave joint report is to be read in the context of the individual reports of the members of the conclave. The individual matters set out in the written submissions for the defendant at [59]-[74] raise a number of criticisms but do not relate the submissions to the provisions of the UCPR that determine the admissibility of joint reports of conclave members. Nor do the submissions address how, or upon what basis, the matters relied upon would warrant the exclusion of the joint report under s 135 of the Evidence Act. I have earlier addressed in relation to the orthopaedic conclave report the issues that determine the admissibility of joint reports. The observations there made have application with the criticisms directed to the occupational therapists conclave report. 162Upon consideration, I have concluded that there is no basis for the application to exclude the joint occupational therapists report. The application to exclude the joint report from evidence is refused.

[29]

Conclusions 163The defendant's written submissions propound propositions and arguments that are contrary to accepted legal principles at a number of levels: (1)The submissions proceed upon the assumption that a conclave report, like an "expert report", is subject to the obligation to disclose underlying reasons for agreement. It is not. Under UCPR r 31.24(1)(c) and r 31.26(2) such an obligation has been abrogated in respect of expert reports. (2)The submissions focus upon the conclave reports without reference to the individual reports of the conclave participants each had earlier provided. Such an approach is contrary to the approach this Court has adopted. The conclave report is to be considered in the context of prior reports: X v Sydney Children's Hospital Specialty Network (No 5) at [55]-[56]. (3)The submissions criticise the absence of "assumptions" and assumed facts regarding questions 3, 4, 7 and 8. Clause 10 of Practice Note SC Gen 11 provides for the provision of "witness statements or preferably a joint statement of the assumptions to be made by the experts ...". The orthopaedic conclave, as noted above, was provided with the three evidentiary statements of the plaintiff as to factual matters. (The defendant did not provide any witness statements to the conclave.) These statements complied with clause 10 of Practice Note SC Gen 11. (4)The submissions assume that the joint report of a conclave is an "expert's report" and therefore must comply with the requirements for such reports. However, the submission overlooks that the "statement of reasoning rule" has been excluded by UCPR 31.24(1)(c) and 31.26(2), as these rules contemplate that the experts are not required to give reasons where there is agreement. There was agreement in this orthopaedic conclave between Drs Bracken and Hopcroft. Dr Millons, though not expressing an opinion on the nature of any discogenic lesion caused by the accident, expressed an opinion not inconsistent with that of Drs Bracken and Hopcroft: "the pain in his back and left sciatica came straight from that so therefore something has happened at that time": Orthopaedic conclave report at p 4. 164The members of the conclave (Drs Hopcroft, Millions and Bracken) were in agreement on the plaintiff's capacity for employment with Dr Harvey expressing his own view: ".... AH, DM and BB agree that the plaintiff would be unemployable on his history. FH believes that he would be fit for light duties": Orthopaedic conclave report at p 7. 165Finally, the defendant's written submissions rely upon the "irrelevant considerations" principle, or a principle that is recognised principle of administrative law: Defendant's Submissions at p3, [3] and p5, [17]. There is an unwarranted assumption that the "irrelevant considerations" ground of judicial review applies to the conclave joint reports. 166There is no basis identified in the defendant's submissions for the operation of that principle upon which the recognised grounds for judicial review can apply. The defendant's submission proceeds on an assumption that the "irrelevant considerations" ground of judicial review applies to the participants in a medical conclave. 167It is well accepted that the process of statutory interpretation is the starting point with respect to such a ground: Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Aaronson, Dyer & Groves (LawBook, 3rd ed, 1973) at p 255. The defendant's submissions make no reference to any such "starting point". 168Finally, UCPR 31.26(3) provides express authorisation for the admission at trial of any matters agreed in a joint report. 169The defendant's submission as to "irrelevant considerations" is, with respect, devoid of merit and is rejected. 170The application to exclude from evidence the four joint expert reports, for reasons set out above, is without merit and must be refused.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (33 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (13)