Mackenzie v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd

Mackenzie v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd - [2015] NSWSC 1320 - NSWSC 2015 case summary — Zoe

[3]

Summary of the grounds

At the hearing of the summons, Mr Romaniuk SC, who appeared with Ms Grotte on behalf of the plaintiff, sought leave (which was not opposed) to amend the summons orally by substituting the following grounds for those that were contained in paragraph 6(b) of the summons. The plaintiff used the expression "negative causation finding" as shorthand for the Review Panel's finding that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle accident had resolved and that any impairment was no longer caused by the accident. The new grounds are: 1. The Review Panel's negative causation finding was based on its misapprehension about the plaintiff's pre‑incident work, the return to work and the separation from work and its finding that there had been a temporary aggravation which had resolved, in the period of the two weeks when he was absent from work. 2. The Review Panel's negative causation finding was not supported by evidence since the only evidence comprised the hospital note at West Wyalong and was based on the Review Panel's mistaken apprehension that the plaintiff returned to duties which were substantially the same as those he had performed prior to the accident. 3. The Review Panel's negative causation finding constituted a failure to accord procedural fairness or was a constructive exercise of jurisdiction in that there was a failure in the manner explained in Rodger v De Gelder [2015] NSWCA 211 to deal with a substantial argument raised by evidence relied on by the plaintiff for the purposes of the task under s 58 of the Act and for the purposes of the non‑medical causation finding under cl 1.8(b) of the MAA Permanent Impairment Guidelines.
I note that I have paraphrased these grounds from the transcript (rather than the amended summons I directed be filed the day after the hearing) since they represented the basis on which the hearing was ultimately conducted.
In addition to the amended grounds, Mr Romaniuk relied on the further ground (the constitution ground), which was alleged in the summons as filed, that the certificate and reasons were invalid as the Review Panel had impermissibly delegated its function of examining the plaintiff to two members and, accordingly, the Review Panel, as constituted, had failed to perform its statutory task.
Ultimately, during Mr Robinson's address, Mr Romaniuk clarified that he abandoned all previous written submissions (notwithstanding his earlier confirmation that he relied on them) and relied solely on the oral submissions he had made at the hearing. No oral submissions were made with respect to the assessment of the right shoulder injury. Accordingly, I do not propose to address it further. As the constitutional ground as originally alleged was still pressed, I took Mr Romaniuk's abandonment of his written submissions not to extend to that ground.

[4]

The evidence relied upon at the hearing

A court book was filed and marked as an exhibit. It relevantly contained: 1. The Review Panel's certificate and reasons dated 15 September 2014; 2. The Diagnostic Radiology Report of Dr Korber dated 11 August 2014; and 3. A chronology prepared by the plaintiff's solicitors which set out the procedural history of the matter which is summarised below.
The plaintiff initially sought to tender five-lever arch folders of documents which comprised the material which had been before the Review Panel. The defendant objected on the basis of Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13; 83 NSWLR 302 at [15] - [19] per Basten JA, Macfarlan JA agreeing. Ultimately, the plaintiff confined its tender to the following documents which comprised a small portion of the material before the Review Panel: 1. two statements by the plaintiff; 2. medical reports which recorded histories the plaintiff had given of his pre- and post-accident work, including: a rehabilitation report of Mr Parks dated 24 July 2007; a report of Dr Fielding (orthopaedic surgeon) dated 15 December 2008; and a report of Dr Lahz, a rehabilitation physician; 3. the hospital notes from West Wyalong Hospital for the plaintiff's attendance on the day following the accident; 4. a medico-legal report from Associate Professor Yeo dated 26 November 2010; 5. Assessor Thomson's reasons and certificate dated 14 February 2013; and 6. The reasons and certificate dated 10 July 2013 of the review panel that was appointed to conduct the medical assessment on review from Assessor's Thomson's assessment (and which was subsequently set aside by this Court).
None of the additional documents sought to be tendered formed part of the record for the purposes of s 69 of the Supreme Court Act: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, as qualified by s 69(4) of the Supreme Court Act. Mr Romaniuk did not accept that the documents were admissible only with respect to the challenge based on jurisdictional error, but not with respect to error on the face of the record. This, however, is the distinction which I am required to draw when determining whether, and how, to take such material into account: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr at [15] - [19] per Basten JA, Macfarlan JA agreeing. Mr Romaniuk contended that these documents were admissible because they indicated the case that the plaintiff had put and which had not been addressed by the Review Panel and also that the Review Panel had misapprehended the true situation as to the plaintiff's pre- and post-accident work history. I understood both complaints to belong to the genus of denial of procedural fairness, which is arguably a basis for jurisdictional error. I admitted them as evidence on those limited bases.

[5]

The Act

A person, who is otherwise entitled to damages under the Act, is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss unless the degree of permanent impairment is greater than 10%: s 131. Where there is a disagreement about the degree of permanent impairment suffered, the Court may not award damages for non-economic loss unless the degree of permanent impairment has been determined by an assessor, who conducts an assessment in accordance with s 133: s 132. The persons qualified to conduct such assessments are medical practitioners who have the relevant specialty for the task and are appointed by the Authority under s 59.
Following such an assessment, the assessor issues a certificate, which is conclusive evidence as to the matters certified in any court proceedings: s 61(1) and (2). Where there is more than one certificate assessing permanent impairment (because different parts of the body or different impairments are assessed), these figures are added (by reference to a combined table) to arrive at a figure for total permanent impairment.
Section 61(9) provides that a certificate is to set out the reasons for any finding by the medical assessor as to any matter certified in the certificate in respect of which the certificate is conclusive evidence.
A party may apply for a referral of a medical assessment to a review panel on the sole ground that the assessment was "incorrect in a material respect": s 63. If so satisfied, the proper officer of the Authority is to refer the application to a panel of at least three medical assessors: s 63(3). A review panel conducts a new assessment: s 63(3A). Following the review, the panel may confirm or revoke the certificate of assessment issued by the single assessor: s 63(4).
The matters to be assessed by an assessor or a review panel include determinations of causation: for example, whether treatment relates to the injury "caused" by the motor accident (s58(1)(b)) and whether the degree of permanent impairment as a result of the injury "caused" by the motor accident is greater than 10%.

[6]

Guidelines issued by the Authority

The Authority may issue guidelines under s 44 of the Act. Section 65(1) of the Act provides that medical assessments under Part 3.4 (ss 57 - 65) are subject to relevant provisions of MAA Medical Guidelines (issued under s 44(1)(d) of the Act) relating to the procedures for the referral of disputes for assessment or review of assessments and the procedure for assessment. It is common ground that the applicable guidelines are the MAA Medical Assessment Guidelines (effective 1 October 2008) (the Medical Assessment Guidelines).
The Authority has power to issue guidelines with respect to the assessment of the degree of impairment of an injured person as a result of an injury caused by a motor vehicle accident: s 44(1)(c). It is common ground that the applicable guidelines are the MAA Permanent Impairment Guidelines (1 October 2007) (the Permanent Impairment Guidelines).
The Permanent Impairment Guidelines provide, so far as is material, with respect to causation as follows: "Causation of injury 1.7 An assessment of permanent impairment is as prescribed under section 58 (1)(d) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The assessment should determine the degree of permanent impairment of the injured person as a result of the injury caused by the motor accident. A determination as to whether the claimant's symptoms and impairment are related to the accident in question is therefore implied in all such assessments. Assessors should be aware of the relevant provisions of the AMA 4 Guides, as well as the common law principles that would be applied by a court (or claims assessor) in considering such issues. 1.8 Causation is defined in the Glossary at page 316 of the AMA 4 Guides as follows: "Causation means that a physical, chemical, or biologic factor contributed to the occurrence of a medical condition. To decide that a factor alleged to have caused or contributed to the occurrence or worsening of a medical condition has, in fact, done so, it is necessary to verify both the following. (a) The alleged factor could have caused or contributed to worsening of the impairment which is a medical determination. (b) The alleged factor did cause or contribute to worsening of the impairment, which is a non-medical determination". This therefore involves a medical decision and a non-medical decision. 1.9 There is no simple common test of causation that is applicable to all cases, but the accepted approach involves determining whether the injury (and the associated impairment) was caused or materially contributed to by the motor accident. The motor accident does not have to be the sole cause as long as it is a contributing cause, which is more than negligible…"
Clause 1.20 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines provides: "An assessment of the degree of permanent impairment involves three stages: (i) A review of medical and hospital records, including: - all available treating and medico-legal doctor notes and reports (general practitioner, specialist and allied health), both prior to and following the accident; and - diagnostic findings from all relevant investigations. (ii) An interview and a clinical examination, wherever possible, to obtain the information specified in the MAA Guidelines and the AMA 4 Guides necessary to determine the percentage impairment; and (iii) The preparation of a report using the methods specified in these MAA Guidelines which determines the percentage permanent impairment together with the evidence, calculations and reasoning on which the determination is based. The applicable parts of the MAA Guidelines and the AMA 4 guides should be referenced."
The Permanent Impairment Guidelines provide that if the text is in bold, it is a directive as to how the assessment should be performed (cl 1.3). Clause 1.23, which is in bold text, provides that the evaluation should only consider the impairment as it is at the time of the assessment.
The Medical Assessment Guidelines relevantly provide as follows: Chapter 11- Assessment procedure 11.1 In conducting an assessment an Assessor, including a member of any Review Panel, may determine the Assessor's own procedure and is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into any issue in such manner as they think fit. . . . Review Panel assessment 16.21 The Review Panel is to hold an initial meeting or teleconference within 30 days of the date the panel was convened and, at that meeting or in subsequent meetings, is to: 16.21.1 consider afresh all aspects of the assessment under review; 16.21.2 determine whether re-examination of the claimant is required, and if so set a timetable for that to occur; … 16.21.7 determine which member of the panel will sign any certificates on behalf of the panel; … 16.25 If the Review Panel members are unable to agree on an aspect of the assessment, the determination of the majority of the Review Panel will be the determination of the Review Panel, or in the case of an evenly divided panel, the view supported by the Chairperson will be the determination of the review Panel, and that determination will include a statement as to the opposing view.

[8]

Motor vehicle accident and the initial assessment of WPI under the Act

The lengthy period between the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident on 27 October 2005 and the filing of the summons in the present proceedings on 10 December 2014 can be explained by the following procedural history which is largely taken from the plaintiff's chronology.
The insurer issued a notice under s 81 admitting breach of duty of care. As the plaintiff and the insurer were unable to agree on the degree of WPI, the plaintiff filed an application for assessment of a permanent impairment dispute on 4 April 2008. He was assessed and a certificate of determination issued on 21 July 2008. His application for review of the certificate was dismissed. On 22 April 2009 he filed an application for further assessment of a permanent impairment dispute. He was assessed and a certificate of determination issued on 25 August 2010. His application for review was dismissed on 6 December 2010. On 16 March 2011, the plaintiff filed another application for further assessment of a permanent impairment dispute. On 12 May 2011, his application was granted and he was referred for further assessment. On 2 June 2011 the insurer filed a summons in this Court seeking judicial review of the decision made on 12 May 2011. Its summons was dismissed on 30 November 2012: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Mackenzie [2012] NSWSC 1458 (Johnson J).
The plaintiff was referred for further assessment to Assessor Thomson who issued reasons and a certificate on 14 February 2013. The insurer applied for review of this assessment, which led to the matter being referred to a review panel constituted by Assessors Rosenthal, Marsh and Eriksen. A further combined certificate and reasons issued on 22 July 2013. The insurer sought judicial review of the review panel's decision by filing a summons in this Court on 27 August 2013. This Court quashed the review panel's certificate of 22 July 2013 and referred the matter to be reallocated to a new review panel: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Mackenzie [2014] NSWSC 67 (Hoeben CJ at CL).
On 15 September 2014 the Review Panel, constituted by Drs Burns, Chan and Crane, issued a certificate in which it determined that the plaintiff's WPI from the right shoulder and back injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident was 0%. On 10 December 2014, the plaintiff filed a summons in this Court in the present proceedings seeking judicial review of the certificate.

[10]

The decision of the Review Panel

The Review Panel issued a certificate under Part 3.4 of the Act and determined that: "THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE REVIEW PANEL UNDER SECTION 63(4) IS AS FOLLOWS: The Panel revokes the certificate dated 14 February 2013 and issues a new certificate determining that: The following injuries caused by the motor accident give rise to a whole person impairment which, in total, IS NOT GREATER THAN 10%: Soft tissue injury of right shoulder Aggravation of pre-existing degenerative disease of lumbar spine Both of these injuries have resolved resulting in no assessable impairment. Details of the review are set out in the reasons below, which form part of this certificate."
The reasons of the Review Panel record that all panel members had received and considered all the documentation described, including: the reasons of Assessor Thomson and all the documentation which had been provided to him; and the Diagnostic Radiology Report dated 11 August 2014 obtained from Dr Korber. The panel confirmed in its reasons that it had "considered afresh all aspects of the assessment under review".
The Review Panel's reasons record the following: A. Evidence Considered The Panel considered all of the available evidence and decided that a re-examination of the claimant was necessary in order to reach a decision, because it was considered more information was needed from the claimant concerning causation of the injuries sustained from the subject motor vehicle accident. Accordingly arrangements were made for the claimant to be examined by Assessor Chan and Assessor Crane on 12 May 2014. Following the examination, the Panel decided that further advice was required from radiologist, Assessor John Korber, concerning the medical imaging of the lumbar spine, both before and after the subject motor vehicle accident. The Panel agreed to reconvene on a date to be decided to discuss the matter further.
The Review Panel then addressed what it referred to as the "Panel clinical examination" and set out in its reasons what had occurred in the examination, including the history the plaintiff had given. The reasons included the following: "At the time of the motor vehicle accident, Mr Mackenzie was a self-employed farm contractor which was full-time work, and involved him driving tractors, trucks and doing stock work and droving. Symptoms and Treatment following the Motor Vehicle Accident After having two weeks off work, Mr Mackenzie returned to harvesting which continued for three weeks at the most, as far as he can recall, when he said he had too much pain in the low back and had to stop. He describes the work he was doing at that time as basically driving a truck without any manual labouring-type work. Mr Mackenzie has not done any work of physical significance since that date but was able to help in his wife's photographic shop."
The Review Panel noted that the plaintiff underwent a lumbar spinal fusion operation performed by Dr Fielding on 21 December 2009.
The Review Panel's reasons relevantly included the following: "Present Situation Mr Mackenzie describes how his back pain and pain in both lower extremities, more so on the right side, has continued in much the same fashion as it was before the back surgery. He describes varying degrees of numbness and pins and needles affecting all the toes of both feet and says that this is present to some extent all the time. He usually wears a lumbar support. . . . C. Panel Deliberations … Lumbar spine Causation The Panel has accepted causation of injury to the lumbar spine based on the notes from West Wyalong Hospital the day following the subject motor vehicle accident together with a note from general practitioner, Dr McGee, made one week after the motor vehicle accident. Permanent Impairment The Panel noted the medical record of general practitioner Dr McGee dated 5 February 2004: "History of chronic backache and sciatica. Sudden onset of backache. Tingling pains in leg up to thigh". An x-ray of the lumbar spine was arranged and this showed a marked narrowing of the L5/S1 disc space associated with osteoarthritic changes. The CT scan of the lumbar spine performed on 24 March 2006 was reported by Assessor Korber as showing advanced disc degeneration at the L5/S1 level with the disc so narrowed that: "there would be no remaining disk left to herniate. The degenerative changes would have been present for a long time. According to Assessor Korber, there was no significant alteration in the appearance of the MRI examinations of the lumbar spine between 7 February 2007, 7 March 2008 and 16 December 2009. He did not find medical imaging evidence of interference with the L5 or S1 nerve roots. It is relevant to note that the claimant did not find any improvement in his back situation following the fusion operation performed in December 2009. The notes from the West Wyalong hospital the day after the accident recorded mild tenderness over the L5/S1 region with the impression recorded as "no significant injury". The Panel considers there is well documented evidence of pre-existing symptomatic low back pain with no evidence of significant injury following the work incident as recorded in the hospital notes and the notes of Dr McGee one and seven days after the accident. Following the accident, the claimant was off work for two weeks and then returned to harvesting work for three weeks before having to stop as the back discomfort was too severe for him to continue. DVD surveillance recorded variously on 2 and 26 April 2007 showed no evidence of restricted back movements. The spinal fusion procedure was carried out in December 2009. Considering all this information, the Panel is of the opinion that there had been a minor aggravation of pre-existing significant degenerative disease in the lumbar spine resulting from the subject motor vehicle accident. It is considered that the aggravation would have been temporary and the resulting symptoms would have resolved within a short period of time. It is therefore considered that the lumbar spine is not assessable for permanent impairment resulting from the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. Assessor Neal Thomson It is relevant to note again that on page 14 of his Certificate, the Assessor stated: "I was not given the opportunity to review any DVDs." It does not appear from the Certificate that Assessor Thomson was aware of the report from the claimant's GP dated 5 February 2004 noting that there had been a history of 'chronic backache with sciatica'. . . . 6. Panel Certification This certificate has been viewed by Assessor Burns, Assessor Chan and Assessor Crane who have confirmed that they are in agreement."

[11]

The parties' submissions

The three matters that constituted the causation grounds pressed by the plaintiff are set out above in the paraphrased passage from Mr Romaniuk's oral amendment. The expression of those grounds includes the submission made in respect of them. To the extent to which he expanded those submissions, the further submissions are summarised below.
The plaintiff contended that the Review Panel's reasons should be understood as meaning that he recovered from the injuries within the two-week period following which he returned to work. Mr Romaniuk said that, fairly read, the reasons indicated that the Review Panel had failed to appreciate that there was a substantial difference between the pre-accident work undertaken by the plaintiff and the work he was able to do for the short period of his return. He argued that, as a matter of logic, it could not be inferred that the condition had resolved. Moreover he submitted that there was no evidence that permitted a finding that the plaintiff had recovered within two weeks, since the only available material to support such a conclusion comprised the West Wyalong hospital notes and the fact of his having returned to work, although not of the same intensity or difficulty.
Mr Romaniuk further submitted that, although the Review Panel had referred to the evidence of the plaintiff's work history, it had misapprehended its significance. In this regard, he relied on what Gleeson JA said in Rodger v De Gelder at [111] (Macfarlan and Leeming JJA agreeing) as relevantly comparable to the present case: "One further matter should be mentioned. Although not articulated in this way, the criticism of the Panel's misreading of Dr Goodman's report is a matter that appears on the face of the Panel's reasons. This is evident in the Panel's finding that Dr Goodman had not recorded Mr De Gelder's complaint of pain between the shoulder blades, when the portion of Dr Goodman's report excerpted in the Panel's reasons addressing of the cervical spine injury does record pain in the relevant areas. Accordingly, the Panel's reasons also disclose an error of law on the face of the record."
Mr Romaniuk submitted that the negative causation finding amounted to a failure to address the plaintiff's case, as indicated by the material before the Review Panel. He relied on the lack of any mention of Dr Yeo's report in the reasons of the Review Panel as a reflection of its failure to either appreciate, or address, the causal hypothesis that supported the plaintiff's claim for WPI in respect of his back injury.
The defendant accused the plaintiff of dressing up a merits review in the guise of an application for judicial review. Mr Robinson submitted that the Review Panel's reasons indicated that it regarded the DVD surveillance footage as highly significant and at odds with the plaintiff's hypothesis that linked his continuing back difficulties and the fusion operation on the one hand with the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident on the other.
Moreover, Mr Robinson submitted that the Review Panel was entitled to perform its assessment as it saw fit and was, thus, entitled (as it chose to do) to examine the plaintiff for the purposes of obtaining information and to obtain a report from Dr Korber which compared and analysed the radiological findings with respect, relevantly, to the plaintiff's lumbar spine over time, including pre-accident. Mr Robinson contended that the Review Panel's findings and assessment were open to it and that, accordingly, this Court had no jurisdiction to disturb the certificate, no denial of procedural fairness, error of law on the face of the record or jurisdictional error having been established.

[12]

Consideration

The Review Panel's obligation to give reasons required it to set out "the actual path of reasoning" by which it arrived at the assessment: Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak [2013] HCA 43 at [48] (Kocak); Frost v Kourouche [2014] NSWCA 39. The reasons actually stated are to be understood as recording the steps that were in fact taken at arriving at that result: Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57 at [130] per Hayne J.
In Kocak, the High Court considered a scheme analogous to the one that applies in the present case. At [47] the High Court (French CJ, Crennan, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ) said (omitting footnotes): The function of a Medical Panel is to form and to give its own opinion on the medical question referred for its opinion…It goes too far, however, to conceive of the function of the Panel as being either to decide a dispute or to make up its mind by reference to competing contentions or competing medical opinions. The function of a Medical Panel is neither arbitral nor adjudicative: it is neither to choose between competing arguments, nor to opine on the correctness of other opinions on that medical question. The function is in every case to form and to give its own opinion on the medical question referred to it by applying its own medical experience and its own medical expertise.
Although there is a requirement for procedural fairness, there is no right to a hearing as such. The Review Panel may decide to examine the claimant, or not, as the case may be. In the present case it decided to do so, in part to obtain information from him relevant to the issue of causation and, it appears, to put to the plaintiff various matters, including what the assessors considered the DVD surveillance footage taken in April 2007 showed. The reasons reveal that the two Assessors who examined the plaintiff on behalf of the Review Panel put to the plaintiff in the course of the examination their concerns about the apparent inconsistency between his history and the footage. I regard the Review Panel's approach as appropriate and consistent with procedural fairness.
I do not consider that the reasons reveal any misapprehension about the plaintiff's work history. The reasons show that the Review Panel appreciated that: the plaintiff was doing heavy farm work prior to the accident; he had two weeks off work after the accident; he returned to lighter work (confined to driving) and found, after a short period, that he was unable to cope; and thereafter he did not return to manual work. I do not detect any proper basis for Mr Romaniuk's submission that the Review Panel must have decided that he had recovered shortly after the accident before he returned to the harvesting work, which involved driving. The submission does not, in my view, do justice to the reasons of the Review Panel. Mr Romaniuk was unable to make good the submission that there was any error arising from any disparity between the plaintiff's statements or histories given and the findings of the Review Panel as expressed in its reasons, much less an error of law. I do not regard the present case as in any way analogous to the situation referred to by Gleeson JA in Rodger v De Gelder at [111].
The Review Panel's ultimate finding was that the soft tissue lumbar spine injury the plaintiff sustained in the accident had resolved and accordingly gave rise to no permanent impairment. It was directed by cl 1.23 to evaluate the impairment only as it was at the time of the assessment. The non-medical causation determination (pursuant to cl 1.8 (b) of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines) obliged it to consider the relevant chronology, including the report of Dr Korber and the DVD surveillance footage, as well as the other evidence including that of Associate Professor Yeo. There is nothing to indicate that the Review Panel did not perform the task it was required to do, or that it failed to have regard to any aspect of the evidence it was obliged to consider.
The Review Panel considered and referred in its reasons to the following significant pieces of evidence in reaching its conclusion on causation: 1. The clinical notes of Dr McGee; 2. The hospital notes from West Wyalong Hospital; 3. X-ray and ultrasounds of the right shoulder and lumbar spine dated 24 March 2006; 4. A CT scan and arthrogram performed on 7 February 2007; 5. MRI examinations of lumbar spine on 7 February 2007, 7 March 2008 and 16 December 2009; 6. DVD surveillance recorded on 2 and 26 April 2007; 7. The report it had obtained from Dr Korber; and 8. Its findings on clinical examination.
The Review Panel was not required to state why it did not accept certain matters. Its duty was to set out its findings and give reasons for the decision it actually made: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323 at [10] (per Gleeson CJ) and [68] (per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). In my view, the plaintiff has failed to show any respect in which the Review Panel failed to fulfil its obligation.
Moreover, even if it could reasonably be said (and I am not persuaded that it can) that the Review Panel failed to give sufficient weight to Associate Professor Yeo's report (a difficult submission to advance since Associate Professor Yeo was unaware of the DVD surveillance footage, on which the Review Panel placed considerable significance), or gave too much weight to the contemporaneous hospital note from West Wyalong Hospital (in which the treating doctor noted that the injury was not a significant one), this would not entitle this Court to intervene: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 41 per Mason J.
I discern nothing in the Review Panel's approach to causation that reveals error, much less legal error of a kind that would give rise to relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act, or jurisdictional error. The importance of respecting Parliament's intention to confer on the Review Panel the obligation of making an assessment is not to be underestimated: Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 at 35 - 36 per Brennan J.
The first ground has not been made out.

[14]

The parties' submissions

The constitutional ground arose from the circumstance that the re-examination of the plaintiff that was conducted as part of the Review Panel's assessment was conducted by two out of three of the assessors.
In reliance on the constitution ground, Mr Romaniuk submitted that the certificate was vitiated by the circumstance that only two of the three members who comprised the Review Panel had participated in the examination of the plaintiff. He contended that Bradley v Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance [2015] NSWSC 950 (Bradley) (in which I rejected the same argument) was wrongly decided and that I should reconsider its correctness in light of the plaintiff's further submissions in the present case. The plaintiff submitted that there was no power, whether express or implied, in s 63 or any other provision of the Act that would permit the Review Panel to conduct a valid examination of a claimant unless all members of the panel were present throughout. He also relied on cl 16.21.7 of the Medical Assessment Guidelines in support of his submission that a specific power to delegate an aspect of the Review Panel's task was required (in that case signing the certificate) and that, as no such provision had been made for conducting the examination, it had to be conducted by all constituent members of the Review Panel.
Mr Romaniuk relied on the following passage in McKee v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2008] NSWCA 163; 71 NSWLR 609 at [23] per Giles JA: "Section 63 only applies when there has been a medical assessment by a single medical assessor; it does not apply if, as s 60(4) and s 61(1) permit, there has been assessment by more than one medical assessor. The occasions for a fresh medical assessment presented by s 61, subs (4) and subs (5), s 61(8) and s 62 are limited. The plain purpose of s 63 is that the collegiate professional expertise of three or more medical assessors should be applied in the review, resulting in an assessment which is more likely to be correct and to be accepted by the parties to the medical dispute."
Mr Robinson submitted that the principles of stare decisis obliged me to follow my own decision in Bradley unless I was persuaded, contrary to his submission, that I was "clearly wrong". He submitted that, as I found in Bradley, there was nothing in the Act or the Guidelines that required all the members of the Review Panel to be present at any such re-examination. Mr Robinson contended that the statutory intention was plain in that the legislature (through the Act and the Guidelines, which are to be treated as delegated legislation) intended the Review Panel, and its individual members, to determine their own procedure as they saw fit. He contended that it was open to the Review Panel to determine that a re-examination ought take place (pursuant to cl 16.21.2 of the Medical Assessment Guidelines) but decide that it be conducted, as occurred in the present case, by two out of the three assessors. Mr Robinson relied on cl 11.1 of the Medical Assessment Guidelines in support of the submission that the fact that legislature specifically contemplated that a single Assessor who was also a member of a Review Panel could determine his or her own procedure indicated that the legislature contemplated that different aspects of the investigations leading to the assessment could be conducted by different members of the Review Panel as long as the actual assessment was made by all three of them.
Further, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff had been informed, by letter to his solicitors dated 23 April 2014, that he would be re-examined by two of the assessors. The defendant argued that as the plaintiff, who was legally represented at the time, had taken no objection to this course, the plaintiff had acquiesced in being examined by fewer than the full complement of members that comprised the Review Panel and, accordingly, relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act ought be refused on discretionary grounds.

[15]

Consideration

I understood the plaintiff (as in Bradley) to confine his challenge on the constitutional ground to the fact that one of the assessors on the Review Panel had not participated in the examination of the plaintiff, which was conducted by the other two. The plaintiff did not contend that I ought infer that the decision to have the examination conducted by Drs Chan and Crane was made other than by all three members of the Review Panel: see Carpenter v Carpenter Grazing Co Pty Limited (1987) 5 ACLC 506 at 514 (Hope JA, Samuels and Priestley JJA agreeing).
For the reasons I gave in Bradley at [68] - [74], I do not consider this ground to have been made out. In summary, in my view, although it is only the panel, comprised of all its members, which can conduct a "new assessment" and make the relevant determination, there is no requirement that all three participate in each of the tasks that leads to the assessment.
In my view, when cl 1.20 of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines is read with cl 11.1 and cl 16.21.2 of the Medical Assessment Guidelines and the Act, it becomes apparent that, although the Review Panel is to determine the procedure to be taken (including whether the claimant is to be examined), it can determine who is to conduct any task involved, apart from the assessment itself, which must be arrived at by the three collectively.
Although Mr Romaniuk contended that he ought to have placed more emphasis on cl 16.21.7 in Bradley, I do not discern any material difference between the arguments put or the question to be determined between the present case and Bradley. Accordingly, the doctrine of stare decisis applies: Favelle Mort Ltd v Murray (1976) 133 CLR 580 at 591 per Barwick CJ. In any event, I am not persuaded that I was in error in Bradley. Moreover, the appropriate forum for the correction of a primary judge's errors (if they be found to be so) is the Court of Appeal: see Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd [1975] Ch. 146 per Scarman LJ at 172.
Accordingly, I consider that the Act and the Medical Assessment Guidelines permitted the Review Panel to determine that the examination of the plaintiff was to be conducted by Assessors Crane and Chan.
In these circumstances it is not necessary for me to consider the submission made by the defendant that the plaintiff had, in any event, waived compliance with any requirement that all three constituent members of the Review Panel be present throughout the examination.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (19 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (14)

Cited By (4)