1. The Respondent's decision is affirmed.
2. Costs reserved.

1. On 28 April 2006, Ms Halie Mennen, then aged 19 (now aged 30), was involved in a four car accident. Her car was hit from behind and pushed into the car in front. She was driving at approximately 40 km per hour. Her car was written off. An ambulance attended and took her to Ballarat Base Hospital. She suffered injuries, some of which cause ongoing problems.
2. In May 2006, Ms Mennen made a general claim to the Transport Accident Commission under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (the Act). TAC accepted liability.
3. In September 2013, TAC received a report from Ms Mennen's general practitioner, Dr Michael Davaris, seeking funding from TAC for Ms Mennen to undergo surgery to her nose; a rhinoplasty with inferior turbinectomy. In his opinion, she sustained injury to her nose in the accident. Dr Davaris reported the surgery (recommended by Mr David Ross, plastic surgeon) was to address nasal obstruction.
4. Mr Ross had reported the procedure would address nasal obstruction and aesthetic issues. He reported his understanding that Ms Mennen's nose had been injured during childhood sport and in the 2006 car accident.
5. TAC sought opinion from its consultant Dr Robert Brzozek. He advised the proposed surgery was unrelated to the 2006 accident. By letter dated 31 December 2013, TAC did not accept the accident was a cause of injury and refused to fund the surgery.
6. Ms Mennen sought review of TAC's decision by VCAT. She said she primarily sought treatment to address daily headaches that affect her work as they stop her using a computer. A secondary purpose was to address cosmetic issues.[1]
7. On 14 December 2015, the case first came before me for hearing. Ms Mennen gave evidence. The hearing was adjourned. After an aborted second hearing day, on 31 March 2016, medical practitioners gave opinions in the context of substantial documentary evidence. On 27 April 2016, I heard submissions and reserved my decision.

1. The primary issue was whether Ms Mennen's nose was broken in the accident causing a deviation of the nasal bones and septum or whether in the accident her nose was injured, aggravating a previous injury. If either of those findings was made, TAC would be liable and the issue of appropriate treatment would arise.

1. In Gennimatas v Transport Accident Commission [2002] VSC 552, Ashley J set out the appropriate test for determining cause of injury under the TAC Act. He said:

... the relatively constant theme of the required relationship between transport accident and injury is that injury be a result of the transport accident ... (para 33)

In the end, the authorities are not at odds with my conclusion that it is sufficient that a transport accident be a cause of injury as determined by application of common law principle; and the incapacitating consequences of injury are to be similarly determined. (emphasis added) (para 45)

1. I must decide whether the transport accident was a cause of the condition for which Ms Mennen seeks funding from TAC to address.
2. Concerning the burden of proof, VCAT should be guided by Golem v Transport Accident Commission [2002] VCAT 319. VCAT held that:

What is required of the Tribunal, placing itself in the shoes of the decision maker, is a state of satisfaction that the decision at which it arrives is the correct decision on the basis of all the material then before it... the bottom line is that the authorities establish that, in proceedings such as this before a Tribunal such as this and pursuant to legislation such as the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, no burden or onus of proof in the curial sense exists.

1. Concerning the standard of proof required to determine the question of causation, VCAT should be guided by Raznovski v Transport Accident Commission [2005] VCAT 652 at para 38:

... the question now to be answered is whether the evidence before the Tribunal is such as to justify an inference of probable connection between the transport accident and the [condition].

1. In 2006, Ms Mennen was a 19-year-old living independently in residential accommodation engaged in tertiary study.
2. At hearing, she gave evidence that while in childhood sport she had "been bumped here and there", she had never sustained an injury to her face.[2] A letter from her mother supported this. Her mother also wrote, the accident left her daughter, "with a noticeable deviation to a nose which is causing her difficulties regarding her health to this day".[3] By letter dated 9 March 2014, Dr Martin Lowe of the Yea Medical Centre advised Ms Mennen had been a patient from May 1986 to June 2009. He wrote the Centre held her records including all presentations to the Yea Hospital during that time. There was no record of any minor or major facial injury.

1. That evidence was contradicted by reports from:

1. Mr Ross who, as mentioned above, recorded Ms Mennen reporting a childhood sporting injury to her nose;[4] 2. Dr Donald R. Marshall, plastic and reconstructive surgeon, who recorded a history of minor sporting injuries not requiring investigation or treatment at hospital.[5] Dr Marshall appears to be referring to facial injury given that is the region of the body he is concerned with;

1. Mr Michael Silverstein, ear nose and throat surgeon who gave evidence at the hearing that Ms Mennen had given him a history of sporting injuries involving the face;[6] and

1. Dr Robert Webb, ear, nose and throat specialist, who recorded a past medical history that Ms Mennen had some knocks to her nose while playing netball but had reported she had never received any fractures.[7]
2. Ms Mennen provided six photographs of herself. One appeared to be of her age say 12.[8] One appeared to be of her in a school uniform.[9] Ms Mennen said this was a 2004 year 12 photograph, provided by a friend. She said family photographs were lost in a bushfire.[10] Of the four photographs of her as an adult, only one recent photograph was taken of her face front on.[11] The other three were taken at angles. None of the expert witnesses were asked to provide opinion based on them.

1. Ms Mennen's 8 December 2014 witness statement had little evidentiary value concerning events during and immediately after the accident. It was largely a commentary about the medical records available to me, presumably drafted by her lawyers. Giving evidence at hearing, Ms Mennen agreed she was unable to remember specifics about the accident or what she told medical staff.[12] She had not read the medical records. Her understanding of them came via her lawyers.[13]

1. The accident occurred on 28 April 2006 shortly before 4 pm. At 4 pm, an ambulance was dispatched.
2. Ambulance notes record Ms Mennen reporting suffering pain including in her cervical spine, right shoulder and left wrist. It is difficult to fully interpret the notes. Concerning her head, the notes say "LAC/bruising x eye, nose". The "x" cannot be accurately reproduced here. The two upper ends of the x finished as small dots.
3. Ms Ryan submitted on behalf of Ms Mennen that this was contemporaneous evidence of an injury to Ms Mennen's nose. Mr Matthews submitted on behalf of TAC that the note was cryptic and ambiguous and in context of other evidence it most likely referred to laceration/bruising above the left eye and nose.
4. The expert witnesses gave opinions as to the meaning of the note. Giving evidence at hearing,

1. Dr Davaris said the note could mean bruising to the right eye and nose or could mean bruising above the eye;[14] 2. Dr Anthony Kam, radiologist, said the note confirmed his view derived from a CT scan done on the day of the accident which resulted in bruising and haematoma on the forehead and left eye regions;

1. Mr Silverstein said the note indicated a laceration or a cut in the region of the left eye with bruising and that the nose was involved.[15] In a report he said the ambulance record, "noted bruising and swelling in the region of the left eye";[16]

1. Dr Webb first disagreed that the note indicated trauma to the nose, saying the described bruising could result from a minor knock. Also, Ms Mennen had bruising of the eye, which would come across and impact the portion of the eye adjacent to the nose. He noted any laceration was not sufficient requiring suturing at hospital. He then agreed the note was on its face an indication of laceration and bruising to the eye and nose.[17]

1. The following description of the hospital records largely adopts TACs written closing submissions.
2. The notes from Ms Mennen's admission, at 4.32 pm, contain diagrams and descriptions indicating swelling and tenderness and a small abrasion over the left eye which was cleaned and had gauze and tape applied, and, seemingly, a superficial abrasion and swelling on the upper eyelid without subconjunctival haematoma. They record her complaining of left eye pain. However, they contain no mention of any swelling to or bleeding from the nose, nor any note indicating any suspicion of nasal fracture.
3. After having been discharged, shortly after 8 pm Ms Mennen re-presented at the emergency department complaining of intermittent, mild blurring of vision in her right eye. The records indicate examination of the eye region, with the left eye having a large periorbital haematoma closing it, but no bruising or haematoma to the right eye nor other signs or symptoms indicating abnormality of vision in that eye. The diagnosis was that there was blurring in the right eye secondary to concussion and otherwise no change in condition. No nasal injury was recorded.
4. In assessing the importance of these notes in finding whether Ms Mennen suffered a nasal injury in the accident, I agreed with TAC's submission that it was significant that:

1. Dr Kam gave evidence that in deciding whether Ms Mennen had suffered a nasal fracture it would be most useful to review the clinical records as to whether there was any documented clinical suspicion or features of nasal fracture at the time. The records do not describe such suspicions or features; 2. Mr Silverstein gave evidence that a fracture of the nose sufficient to bring about the deviation now apparent would have taken significant force such that the injury would have caused swelling in the region of the injury including underneath the eyes and the lower eyelids and depending on the force to each side of the nose. He said the swelling would have appeared by the time of the first hospital admission and would have been apparent to hospital staff. The records do not describe such injuries;

1. Mr Silverstein gave evidence that there is a high frequency of correct diagnosis of nasal fractures in accident and emergency departments. No such diagnosis was made;

1. Mr Silverstein and Dr Webb gave evidence that a blood nose would commonly result from such fracture. While Ms Mennen gave evidence she had a "very bad blood nose following the car accident ... They didn't wash my face until I have all of my scans done"[18], the records do not describe this; and 2. Dr Webb gave evidence that there would have been considerable swelling over the entirety of the nose including the lower part of the nose on both sides of the nose as the face swells easily with trauma. The records do not describe this.

1. A CT scan taken at the hospital on the day of the accident was discovered in December 2015. This caused the 14 December 2015 hearing to be adjourned, part heard.
2. Once obtained, the expert witnesses had the opportunity to interpret it. It was a scan primarily of the brain but which included the nasal bone at the top of the nose but not the cartilage which forms the lower part of the nose.
3. When first shown the CT scan, Dr Kam briefly reported it only partially imaged the nose because it was optimised for a brain study. He noted what could be seen showed significant left forehead and nasal bridge soft tissue haematoma formation but did not show any nasal bone fracture. In a report dated 4 January 2016, he wrote of the CT images being optimised for brain coverage and not providing adequate coverage or assessment of the nose nasal cavity. He repeated what could be seen showed no fracture of the nose or nasal cavity, although coverage of the nasal cavity was very limited. Giving evidence at hearing, Dr Kam strongly opined the CT scan sufficiently covered the nose (the nasal bone but not nasal cartilage in the lower part of the nose) to provide evidence of whether or not bone was broken in the accident. In his opinion, it was clear there was no fracture.[19]
4. Dr Kam was also of the opinion that the swelling and haematoma shown in the scan was not consistent with nasal fracture. In his view, there was no significant facial swelling or haematoma formation to be seen over the face or nose and the haematoma and swelling was at eyebrow level of the supraorbital bridge on the left side and decreased towards the nose, so it was "centred above the nose".[20]
5. Mr Silverstein did not give evidence that the CT scan showed evidence of a nasal fracture. Concerning the evidence as a whole of which he was aware, at hearing he described his position as the evidence not making it possible for him to exclude a fracture. In his opinion, Ms Mennen had probably suffered a deviation to the nose before the accident with the accident causing further deviation. He said he based that on the ambulance notes, which gave him the impression of bilateral bruising.[21] In an email to Ms Mennen's lawyers dated 27 January 2016, Mr Silverstein advised the April 2006 CT scan was aimed at assessing potential brain injury and was not diagnostic concerning the potential of a nasal fracture.[22]
6. Dr Webb gave evidence that the CT scan sufficiently covered the nose to clearly indicate there was no nasal fracture. He agreed Ms Mennen suffered trauma in the region of her nose resulting in bruising.[23] Dr Webb also gave evidence that the CT scan showed haematoma spread from over the left eye across the upper part of the nose and down towards the right eye without reaching it.

1. Ms Mennen suffered significant injury in the accident. According to medical records:

1. On 29 April 2006, she presented to the hospital complaining of left shoulder and back pain with headache; 2. On 2 May 2006, she saw Dr Kate Moffat, general practitioner, at a local medical centre. She reported the accident. She had two black eyes, and reported pain in neck, back, shoulders, hips and right knee. She was referred for physiotherapy. Concerning the two black eyes, Dr Webb[24], Mr Silverstein[25] and Dr Davaris[26] opined that bruising on one side of the head can over time seep to the other side;

1. On 8 May 2006, she presented to the hospital complaining of occasional pain in neck, back, right knee and left wrist and on 6 October 2006 complaining of back and lower limb symptoms;

1. On 30 May 2006 she consulted an optometrist reporting headache/migraine since the car accident;[27] 2. On 13 July 2006, she returned to Dr Moffat, reporting pain to both buttocks and presented with a tender sacral area; 3. On 6 October 2006, Ms Mennen presented to the hospital complaining of back and lower limb symptoms.
2. It is convenient to note here that in Ms Mennen's 18 May 2006 TAC application form, no mention is made of nasal injury or headache.
3. Ms Mennen gave evidence at hearing it was not until after the swelling in her face went down a couple of months after the accident that she realised, two or three months after the accident that "the deviation was there".[28] She also said she started experiencing nasal symptoms a year or two after the accident. However, she did not seek treatment.
4. Ms Mennen says, it was not until she had finished her studies and started work as a graphic artist that headaches she experienced became a very significant issue, occurring frequently and causing time off work.

1. Over time, Ms Mennen continue to seek treatment for injuries from the accident.
2. I focus on:
   1. Her treatment for headaches given this is a symptom now attributed to her nasal condition; the main reason given for the proposed treatment; and
   2. The lack of any report concerning any nasal condition.
3. In March 2010, Ms Mennen started attending the Burnley Street Medical Centre. According to the records, confirmed by Dr Davaris giving evidence at hearing, there was no pattern of Ms Mennen reporting headaches at the Burnley Street Centre. A report of headaches on 5 November 2011 was not connected to the accident nor to any nasal condition. On 21 November 2012, she was diagnosed as suffering from migraine for the last two days and prescribed medication. On 19 and 21 February 2013, she reported headaches and feeling unwell. On 19 February, headache was attributed to sun exposure. While on 21 February, Dr Davaris recorded his plan of a CT scan if the headaches did not settle, no scan was ordered. On 10 November 2013, Ms Mennen reported experiencing migraine for 2 ½ days. Medication was prescribed. On 6 February 2014, Ms Mennen again reported headaches, not identified as related to any nasal condition.
4. Giving evidence at the hearing, Dr Davaris agreed that while Ms Mennen had not consistently reported headaches to the practice, it is quite common for people who experience chronic headaches, including if related to nasal conditions, to simply not report them and to live with them.
5. Concerning other medical treatment, according to Ms Mennen, she was experiencing headaches and sought treatment via a Botox injection from a clinic in Brunswick, the name of which she could no longer recall. She recalled being given a Botox injection above her eyes to prevent headaches. She said she had been experiencing daily headaches. [29]
6. On 25 July 2013, Ms Mennen attended Dr Rhett Bosnich at the Newin Institute. According to her witness statement, since the 2006 accident she had been experiencing headaches, breathing difficulties and sleep disturbance due to her nasal injuries. She attended Dr Bosnich for this. She said it was Dr Bosnich who first asked whether she had ever had her nose looked at regarding headaches. However, Dr Bosnich's records[30] make no mention of treatment for headaches, apparently referring to the injection blocking lines in her forehead. Dr Bosnich referred her to Mr Ross, the plastic surgeon. His referral letter does not mention headaches. He did mention her "nasal septal/ [illegible word] deviation which causes her concern".[31]
7. In the 9 September 2013 report addressed to Dr Bosnich, Mr Ross described Ms Mennen as being concerned about her nasal appearance over the last 7 to 8 years and said now that she had become employed she had the opportunity to address the condition. It was here Mr Ross reported his understanding that Ms Mennen was involved in a number of sporting incidents and the 2006 car accident. He ordered the 11 September 2013 CT scan which Andrew Rotstein, radiologist, reported on.
8. Dr Rotstein reported, on a CT scan taken in September 2013, that Ms Mennen's nose and nasal cavity septum were deviated to the left and old nasal bone fractures were united.[32]
9. In his 4 January 2016 report, Dr Kam considered the September 2013 CT scan. He did not identify any new or old fracture. He noted Dr Rotstein's report of old nasal bone fractures being united. Given Dr Kam could not identify any fractures and CT scan, Dr Kam assumed Dr Rotstein was implying that the known previous nasal fracture (provided to Dr Rotstein in clinical information), was not seen and therefore must have united.[33]
10. In his 16 September 2013 report to Dr Bosnich, Mr Ross said the CT scan showed significant deviation of Ms Mennen's nasal dorsum, "which was a result of both the motor vehicle accident and sporting injuries during her teenage years". He reported almost complete airway obstruction on the left side. In his opinion, rhinoplasty surgery would address aesthetic issues, structural issues and airflow issues.
11. Four days later, on 20 September 2013, Dr Davaris first recorded "nasal obstruction - chronic after MCA 2005 CT scan need surgery letter to TAC". At hearing Dr Davaris agreed this was the first time he recorded because it was the first time Ms Mennen reported it.[34] He also said that on questioning, Ms Mennen told him she had experienced intermittent nasal congestion since the 2006 accident, which had become a more regular problem.
12. Also on 20 September 2013, Dr Davaris sent a brief note to TAC requesting the surgery Mr Ross had recommended, briefly attributing Ms Mennen's nasal condition to the 2006 accident. In another brief note dated 7 February 2015, Dr Davaris wrote of Ms Mennen suffering a severe motor car accident that apparently resulted in some facial damage to her nose. He described obvious deviation of the nose and deviation of the septum of the nose. He noted there was no other history of trauma that the injury was in his opinion consistent with the accident.
13. In a more comprehensive report dated 27 February 2015 addressed to Ms Mennen's lawyers, Dr Davaris briefly described the accident. He said Ms Mennen had made a relatively satisfactory recovery although she continued to complain of intermittent low back pain and progressive nasal obstruction. At the time, he was not aware of the CT scan taken on the day of the accident. He had not seen ambulance or hospital records. He concluded, "[In] my opinion that although all the evidence is not clear-cut about her injuries, there is sufficient evidence in the mechanism of the injury, to relate it to her motorcar accident." In a brief supplementary letter dated 2 February 2016, Dr Davaris wrote of having reviewed the ambulance and hospital notes. While he did not change his opinion, he said that if the CT scanned films could be found and reviewed they would provide a clearer picture.

1. The evidence shows Ms Mennen's nose is deviated to the left. As TAC submitted, during evidence at hearing, Dr Webb and Dr Silversein gave evidence that medical records indicated the blow to Ms Mennen's head over the left eye would cause deviation to the right, not the left. However, the evidence was late in the proceeding and somewhat confusing. In submissions, TAC did not heavily rely on it. In my view, the evidence was not sufficiently clear such that it shoud be relied on.

1. An amount of the evidence in this proceeding concerned the appropriate treatment for Ms Mennen's condition and likely results. There are differing schools of thought on that. I do not describe the evidence. Given my decision, the issue of appropriate treatment does not arise,.

1. Deciding this case posed a dilemma.
2. On one hand, the evidence before VCAT proved Ms Mennen has a deviated nose. Medical opinion supports surgery, although opinions on appropriate surgery and its likely result differ.
3. While something caused the condition, the evidence was not sufficient to find Ms Mennen's nose was injured before the car accident. Neither was the evidence sufficient to find Ms Mennen's nose was injured after the car accident.
4. However, to decide TAC was liable to pay the cost of reasonable medical treatment required making inference of probable connection between the transport accident and the condition of Ms Mennen's nose.
5. That inference could not reasonably be made.
6. There are occasions where a finding that an accident was a cause of a medical condition is largely based on a hypothesis that the accident was the only potential cause of the medical condition, all other possibilities having being excluded.
7. However, this tends to be in the situation where a sufficient combination of the following applies:

1. It appears the condition as existing at the time of the VCAT proceeding did not exist before the accident; 2. The applicant's evidence assists and is completely or largely accepted;

1. The medical evidence surrounding the accident allows for the possibility that the accident was a cause of the condition;

1. The medical evidence, as months and perhaps years pass since the accident, at least does not contradict reported symptoms; 2. There is a reasonable explanation for any lack of reporting to medical practitioners after the accident; and 3. The possibility that the injury occurred after the accident can be excluded.

1. More likely than not the condition did not exist before the accident.
2. I accepted the evidence from Ms Mennen's mother and the Yea Medical Centre that they were not aware of any significant injury. That said, in my view it is more likely than not that Ms Mennen reported prior injury to medical specialists she was consulting. While she denies making such reports, it would be unusual for such specialists to record such a past history by mistake, as Ms Mennen claimed. However, it was unclear what degree of injury she was reporting. She may have reported minor injury. For completeness, I note the photographs (see paragraph 16 above) were few, of poor quality, and did not assist.
3. There was no medical evidence on or around the day of the accident that supported pre-existing injury.
4. The two CT scans did not assist on this. As discuss below, I accepted that the 2006 CT scan can be relied on to conclude Ms Mennen's nose was not on the day of the accident broken. Not having the benefit of Dr Rotstein giving evidence at hearing, I accepted Dr Kam's evidence (paragraph 44) that the 2013 CT scan did not actually show a past fracture. I accepted Dr Rotstein's report of past fracture that had been united had been based on interpretation in the context of other evidence that at some stage the nose had been fractured.

1. I was not assisted by and was unable to accept significant elements of Ms Mennen's evidence.
2. Not surprisingly, she had little recall of the 2006 accident.
3. I was unable to accept that two to three months after the accident when swelling went down Ms Mennen became aware her nose was broken. There was no record of her mentioning this to treating doctors.
4. When the issue of headaches was considered by her medical treaters, no one observed a deviation to her nose and queried whether that was involved. While I accept Dr Davaris' evidence that people with nasal conditions often live with resulting symptoms, such as headaches, presumably that is in the circumstance where they have first consulted their medical practitioner. There is no evidence of any consultation of any medical practitioner about nose injury some months after the accident and then for years. I did not regard the single report to an optometrist in May 2006 as sufficient evidence of headaches developing soon after the accident.
5. I was unable to accept her evidence that she attended an unknown medical service seeking a Botox injection to address headaches. It remains unexplained how she may have arrived at the view this was appropriate. There was no evidence of any doctor suggesting this.
6. I was unable to accept her evidence that she attended Dr Bosnich and then Mr Ross to address headaches, breathing difficulties and sleep disturbance due to her nasal injuries. Their records (paragraphs 40 to 42) do not mention such issues.

1. The medical evidence surrounding the accident is inconsistent with Ms Mennen's nose being injured in the accident. There was no substantial medical evidence positively supporting a finding of injury to the nose in the accident. The medical evidence following the accident is inconsistent with Ms Mennen's account of how she came to realise her nose was injured, the evolution of symptoms and her seeking treatment. I expand on this.
2. I agree with TAC's submission that the ambulance notes are cryptic as to whether or not Ms Mennen's nose appeared to the ambulance officer to be injured. The weight of medical opinion does not support an interpretation that the notes indicate injury to the nose (paragraph 21). In any case, brief ambulance notes taken quickly, and no doubt carefully, at the accident scene must be viewed in context of the necessarily more comprehensive hospital notes as the patient is treated.
3. The hospital notes give no indication of injury to the nose, where it is highly likely that if such injury had occurred the injury or other injuries consistent with the injury would have been documented either on the first presentation or following presentations. That is particularly relevant given the evidence of the specialists concerning what would be recorded (paragraph 25), which was not.
4. I accepted the opinions of Dr Kam and Dr Webb that the 2006 CT scan provides sufficient coverage of Ms Mennen's nose to make a judgement as to whether it was fractured at the time and that the scan shows no such fracture. I gave the most weight to Dr Kam's opinion as a very experienced radiologist. While Dr Kam's written reports may have given the impression that the CT scan was in some way inadequate to provide clear evidence, he clarified that at the hearing. I rejected submissions on Ms Mennen's behalf that I should disregard Dr Kam's opinion given his earlier reports about the limited utility of the CT scan. It was appropriate to consider Dr Kam's evidence in its totality, both written and oral. Given his specific expertise, I preferred his opinion to Mr Silverstein's contrary opinion (paragraph 30).
5. By the time Mr Silverstein had given evidence, he had appropriately amended his opinion, given further information available to him. His position was he could not exclude the accident being a cause of the injury. Not being able to exclude something as a cause has less weight than positive evidence that a factor was a cause of an injury.
6. I did not accept that Ms Mennen had black eyes some days after the accident when she saw Dr Moffat was significant. In the context of the hospital notes, I accepted evidence (paragraph 32(b)) that this could well be due to seepage in the days following the accident.
7. Dr Davaris's opinion (after seeing the ambulance and hospital notes) that "although all the evidence is not clear-cut about her injuries, there is sufficient evidence in the mechanism of the injury to related to her motorcar accident", I preferred the contrary evidence of the relevant specialists.
8. TAC chose not to cross examine Mr Ross, Ms Mennen's treating plastic surgeon. On the causation issue, I accept he holds his opinion as expressed. However, his opinion has limited weight. He was relying on what was reported to him, not the whole evidence.
9. I note here Ms Mennen's mother's sentence about her daughter's medical condition following the accident does not assist in the context to the other evidence.

1. Available medical records over the years following the accident do not establish any pattern of Ms Mennen, while seeing her general practitioner, complaining of nasal issues or headaches.

Possibility that injury occurred after the accident

1. The evidence did not describe in any relevant detail what unfolded in Ms Mennen's life in the seven years between the accident in April 2006 and the issue of nasal injury being raised in July 2013.
2. I was unable to exclude the possibility that Ms Mennen's nose condition arose after and unconnected to the accident.

1. For the above reasons, I affirmed TAC's decision.

[4] Reports dated 9 and 16 September 2013, Tribunal Book pages 89 and 88 respectively.

[5] Report dated 27 November 2013, Tribunal Book, page 40.

[7] Report dated 23 July 2015, Tribunal Book, page 65.

[11] Tribunal book page 420, Transcript page 34.

[16] Report dated 11 September 2015, Tribunal Book, page 56.

[19] Email dated 14 December 2015 Transcript, pages 12, 13.

[20] Adopting the language of TACs written submission.

[23] Supplementary report dated 28 January 2016 and Transcript, page 85.