Legal Bulletin No. 63

Issued 3 June 2022

Welcome to the sixty-third edition of the Personal Injury Commission’s Legal Bulletin. Please see here for details about the legal citations used for the Commission’s decisions. The decisions listed below are now available on AustLII and will be available shortly, on Jade and Lexis Nexis. Any legislative updates are provided at the base of the Bulletin.

Supreme Court Decisions

Field-Whittaker v Thomas & Naaz Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 666

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review; Workplace Injury Management and Worker’s Compensation Act 1998; rejection of additional relevant evidence; error in PIRS Assessment of concentration, persistence, pace and employability; matter remitted to President of Personal Injury Commission.

Decision date: 25 April 2022 | Before: Harrison AsJ

Boga v AAI Limited trading as AAMI [2022] NSWSC 560

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review; injury suffered from motor accident; degree of permanent impairment in issue; additional surveillance footage and medical reports provided; power to refer a party for further medical assessment under section 62 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (1999 Act) exercised; whether delegate failed to view surveillance or to assess it separately to the medical reports; whether delegate erred in concluding that reports were additional relevant information; whether delegate erred in concluding that the reports were additional relevant information capable of having a material effect on the previous assessment; whether delegate failed to exercise the residual discretion under section 62 of the 1999 Act; proper officer failed to exercise the residual discretion; jurisdictional error found.

Decision date: 12 May 2022 | Before: Dhanji J

Presidential Decisions

Zgouras v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited [2022] NSWPICPD 17

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Rule 78 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021; adequacy of reasons and approach to review of reasons; Roncevich v Repatriation Commission considered; rules of evidence excluded by statute; Onesteel Reinforcing Pty Ltd v Sutton.

Decision date: 12 May 2022 | Before: President Judge Phillips

ACW v ACX [2022] NSWPICPD 19

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Medical evidence, alleged factual error; application of Paric v John Holland Constructions Pty Ltd, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd; Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd; common-sense factual findings on the basis of common knowledge or experience, procedural fairness; application of New South Wales Police Force v Winter.

Decision date: 17 May 2022 | Before: Deputy President Michael Snell

Sharp v Sylvanvale Foundation Limited [2022] NSWPICPD 20

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Section 352(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; identification of error; appeal allowed in accordance with the consent between the parties.

Decision date: 17 May 2022 | Before: Deputy President Elizabeth Wood

Motor Accidents non-Presidential Member Decisions

Clarke v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2021] NSWPIC 224

Section 6.14 of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017; late claim; application for assessment of damages made before explanation for late claim made out or insurer fails to challenge late claim; dismissal of application to assess damages; dismissed under section 54 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 andrule 77 Personal Injury Commission Rules; Held- application to assess damages is misconceived and dismissed.

Decision date: 11 April 2022 | Member: Terence O’Riain

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v Mirenzi [2022] NSWPIC 225

Motor accidents settlement approval; 88-year-old female; passenger in a motor vehicle accident, sustained a buckle type fracture of the 7th rib together with aggravation of pre-existing spondylosis of cervical and thoracic spine, bilateral knee pain, no allegation of contributory negligence alleged, agreed claimant has 20% whole person impairment in respect of physical injuries; entitlement to non-economic loss; no claim for past or future economic loss; Held- proposed settlement is just, fair and reasonable; Settlement approved; 1. the proposed settlement is approved; 2.the proposed settlement is approved under section 6.23(2)(b) of the Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017.

Decision date: 12 April 2022 | Member: David Ford

Mathews v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2022] NSWPIC 226

Assessment of Claim for Damages under Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); self-represented Claimant; liability wholly admitted; litigation of loss; non-economic loss; past loss of earnings; future loss of earning capacity; Held- the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim is $959,484.75; the Claimant’s economic loss is reduced by, and the Insurer is to have credit for, the sum of $233,780.84 in accordance with s 4.10 of the MAI Act; the amount of the Claimant’s costs, taking into account the amount of damages assessed in respect of this claim, assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 is$57,151.60 inclusive of GST.

Decision date: 11 May 2022 | Member: Gary Victor Patterson

Shelly v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPIC 229

Claims assessment application; where the application has been referred to the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) for assessment more than 3 years after the motor accident; whether the claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay for the purposes of section 7.33 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act, 2017 (the MAI Act); meaning of “full and satisfactory explanation” in the context of section 7.33 of the MAI Act; whether leave should be granted by the Commission; Held – for the purposes of section 7.33 of the MAI Act the claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring the claim for assessment; leave granted for the claim to be referred for assessment; the proceedings are listed for further directions.

Decision date: 20 May 2022 | Member: Maurice Castagnet

Cabrita v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPIC 230

Claims assessment application; where the application has been referred to the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) for assessment more than 3 years after the motor accident; whether the claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay for the purposes of section 7.33 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act, 2017 (the MAI Act); meaning of “full and satisfactory explanation” in the context of section 7.33 of the MAI Act; whether leave should be granted by the Commission; Held – for the purposes of section 7.33 of the MAI Act the claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring the claim for assessment; leave granted for the claim to be referred for assessment; the proceedings are referred to the stood over list.

Decision date: 20 May 2022 | Member: Maurice Castagnet

Newton v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPIC 238

Claims assessment application; where the application has been referred to the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) for assessment more than 3 years after the motor accident; whether the claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay for the purposes of section 7.33 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act, 2017 (the MAI Act); whether leave should be granted by the Commission; section 36(2) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) applied; Held – for the purposes of section 7.33 of the MAI Act, a grant of leave is not required.

Decision date: 24 May 2022 | Member: Maurice Castagnet

Newton v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPIC 239

Claims assessment application; where the application has been referred to the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) for assessment more than 3 years after the motor accident; whether the claimant has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay for the purposes of section 7.33 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act, 2017 (the MAI Act); whether leave should be granted by the Commission; section 36(2) of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) applied; Held – for the purposes of section 7.33 of the MAI Act, a grant of leave is not required.

Decision date: 24 May 2022 | Member: Maurice Castagnet

Workers Compensation non-Presidential Member Decisions

Namo v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 173

Claims for injuries to feet and hips (already accepted) and consequential injury to the lumbar spine; claim pursuant to section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 only able to be referred to medical assessment if injury to lumbar spine found; consideration of factual material, medical reports and other treatment records; consideration of surveillance footage; consideration of the requirements for a finding of consequential injury; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Moon v Conmah Pty Limited considered; consideration of applicant’s credit in the light of the surveillance footage and undisclosed previous back injuries; consideration of extent to which applicant’s credit affects the medical evidence; Held – cannot find an unbroken chain of evidence linking the accepted injuries to any lumbar spine injuries; consequential injury to lumbar spine not found; application dismissed under section 54 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 as no dispute left capable of determination.

Decision date: 21 April 2022 | Member: Gaius Whiffin

Nejad v CJ Formwork Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWPIC 227

Claim for proposed surgery at C5/6 level; application of section 60(5) Workers Compensation Act 1987; conflicting medical opinion as to whether surgery is reasonably necessary; Held: Surgery is reasonably necessary as result of workplace injury. Diab v NRMA Ltd applied.

Decision date: 19 May 2022 | Principal Member: Josephine Bamber

Leek v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 228

Claim for lump sum compensation for disputed injury on 27.5.16 to right foot, ankle, knee and consequential lumbar spine; consideration of clinical records and applicant’s statements; consideration of Greater Taree City Council v Moore,  Mason v Demasi, Moon v Conmah P/L, and Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates; Held- applicant sustained injury to right foot and ankle on 27.5.16 and consequential lumbar spine condition, onus not discharged in respect of right knee; matter referred to Medical Assessor for assessment of permanent impairment in respect of right lower extremity (ankle) and lumbar spine.

Decision date: 19 May 2022 | Member: Michael Wright

Davila v Queensland Properties Investments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 231

Claim for weekly payments of compensation on the basis of multiple injuries; disputation as to whether worker incapacitated and whether injuries should be characterised as injuries simpliciter or as injuries caused by the “nature and conditions” of the workers employment; Mirkovic v David Holdings Pty Ltd and Perry v Tannine Pty Ltd discussed; significance of worker working 32 hours per week for respondent as a cleaner at time of termination of his employment; Held- award for worker pursuant to section 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 on the basis of partial incapacity.

Decision date: 20 May 2022 | Member: Paul Sweeney

King v Byron Shire Council [2022] NSWPIC 232

Claim for weekly compensation for psychiatric injury; employer denies injury and, alternatively, alleges that it was caused by reasonable acts with respect to “discipline” “performance appraisal” or “retrenchment” within section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); no real contest on injury; employer alleges that “discipline” included general communication where “learning” or “instruction” were imparted to the worker by his supervisor; Kushwaha v Queanbeyan City Council considered but not followed; Held- that employer had not proven defences under section 11A of the 1987 Act; award for worker for weekly compensation during first and second entitlement periods.

Decision date: 20 May 2022 | Member: Paul Sweeney

Farag v The State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2022] NSWPIC 233

Claim for weekly compensation by civilian employee with accepted psychological injury; employer disputes entitlement to compensation on the basis that injury was caused by action with respect to “transfer” within section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; applicant transferred on several occasions within short period allegedly for operational reasons and efficiency; Held- that respondent had not proven that  transfer of the worker and the reduction in her pay level  within five days of commencing in a new position after her forced return to the State Crime Command from a secondment was reasonable; award for the applicant.

Decision date: 23 May 2022 | Member: Paul Sweeney

O’Brien v ISS Property Services Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 234

Claim for weekly payments, medical expenses and permanent impairment for psychological injury; worker had a previous significant psychological injury as a police officer; whether the worker perceived his workplace to be a hostile environment and was the cause of injury; reference to Attorney General’s Department v K;  Held– the worker’s employment was the main contributing factor to his psychological injury; award for weekly payments of compensation, medical expenses and referral for assessment of permanent impairment to Medical Assessor.

Decision date: 23 May 2022 | Member: John Isaksen

Stevens v The Secretary Department of Transport [2022] NSWPIC 235

Application for lump sum benefits for whole person impairment as a consequence of psychological injury; whether the applicant was suffering from a secondary psychological injury for the purposes of section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 which ought be taken into account by the Medical Assessor in assessing whole person impairment; single area of dispute agreed by the parties and determined on the papers; Moon v Conmah Pty Limited; Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Limited; Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates; Held- respondent had not discharged its onus that the applicant received a secondary psychological injury as a consequence of the physical injury; no allowance was to be made by the medical assessor for a secondary psychological injury; matter remitted to the President for referral on this basis.

Decision date: 23 May 2022 | Member: Christopher Wood

Brookes v EWP Plant Equipment Sales Service and Spares [2022] NSWPIC 236

Claim for weekly compensation in respect of accepted lumbar injury and secondary psychological condition; ongoing effects of injury in dispute; where pre-existing lumbar and psychological conditions; evidence of work capacity for a period of time following injury; multiple causes of incapacity; Held- weighing the evidence, the accepted lumbar injury and secondary psychological condition continued to be incapacitating during the period of weekly compensation claimed; no current work capacity; Calman v Commissioner of Police and McCarthy v Department of Corrective Services; respondent ordered to pay ongoing weekly compensation pursuant to sections 37 and 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Decision date: 24 May 2022 | Member: Rachel Homan

Litong v Blackmores Limited [2022] NSWPIC 237

Lumbar spine injuries in 2012 and 2021; worker returned to normal duties; disease injury; consequential psychological condition; current work capacity; ability to earn in a range of suitable employment; Held– award for applicant for weekly compensation and section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 expenses for which second insurer is liable.

Decision date: 24 May 2022 | Member: Catherine McDonald

Zhang v Echelon NCLY Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 240

Claim by the applicant for the cost of cervical spinal surgery; the respondent conceded that the applicant suffered a frank injury to his cervical spine, but that any aggravation or exacerbation of the degenerative condition therein had resolved; the respondent also submitted that the surgery proposed is not reasonably necessary as a result of injury; Held- finding that the aggravation and/or exacerbation of the degenerative condition in the applicant’s spine had not resolved, and that the surgery proposed was reasonably necessary as a result of the frank injury; respondent ordered to pay for the costs of and incidental to surgery pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Decision date: 25 May 2022 | Member: Brett Batchelor

Spirkoski v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer & Ors [2022] NSWPIC 241

Applicant injured performing work as a bricklayer; at time of injury undergoing a trial under the control of the putative employer; whether applicant a worker or deemed worker; whether relevant indicia supportive; Held- On Call and Hollis considered and applied; indicia indicated contract of services; issues of credit considered; award respondents; applicant neither worker nor deemed worker.

Decision date: 25 May 2022 | Member: John Wynyard

Studdert v State of New South Wales (Ambulance Service of NSW) & Ors [2022] NSWPIC 242

Apportionment of lump sum death benefit pursuant to section 25 Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Decision date: 25 May 2022 | Principal Member: Josephine Bamber

Motor Accidents Medical Review Panel Decisions

Rahimuddin v AAI Limited t/as AAMI [2022] NSWPICMP 224

Whole person impairment of right shoulder; assessments of assessor of left knee, right knee and lumbar spine not challenged; causation of injury considered; claimant motor bike rider with significant injuries to both knees; Held- whole person impairment of right shoulder found at 4% giving combined total whole person impairment of 12% when added to assessors unchallenged assessment.

Decision date: 4 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Alex Bolton, Dr Paul Curtin and Dr Shane Maloney | Injury module: Spine, lower and upper limb and minor skin

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Lin [2022] NSWPICMP 226

Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999; treatment reasonable and necessary; treatment related to injury caused by the accident; knee surgery; pre-existing knee pathology; accident material contribution to need for surgery. The claimant had significant existing knee pathology; pre-accident the claimant’s knee condition treated conservatively and did well until the accident;  the claimant asserts he hit his knees on the dashboard in a rear end collision; following accident the claimant underwent right anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and a left knee arthroscopy and partial lateral meniscectomy and excision of a ganglion cyst; question whether surgery reasonable and necessary, question whether surgery related to injury caused by accident; Held: the Panel found the claimant hit his knees on the dashboard in the accident; accident changed a potentially unstable anterior cruciate ligament/meniscal injury to a clinically unstable anterior/cruciate/meniscal injury; accident materially contributed to the injury; accident was material contribution to the need for surgery; surgery would not have arisen but for the occurrence of the accident; surgery reasonable and necessary and related to injury caused by the accident.

Decision date: 19 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Susan McTegg, Dr Geoffrey Stubbs and Dr David McGrath | Injury module: Spine

Workers Compensation Medical Appeal Panel Decisions

Trustees of the Marist Brothers v Mohamed [2022] NSWPICMP 225

The Panel determined that the Medical Assessor erred in the methodology of assessment with respect to the upper extremities, failed to assess the left elbow and scarring, and may have erred in the section 323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) deduction such that a re-examination was required; the worker’ presentation was inconsistent such that the range of motion method was not appropriate; Held- on re-examination, many of the original findings were confirmed, and on assessment of all body parts, and a section 323 of the 1998 deduction, Medical Assessment Certificate was revoked.

Decision date: 12 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Dr David Crocker and Dr Tommasino Mastroianni |Body system: Lumbar spine, left and right upper extremity and scarring

Marshalls Sydney Pty Ltd v Fulmen [2022] NSWPICMP 227

Assessment of psychological injury; consideration of recent treating practitioner’s report which showed markedly different functioning today of Medical Assessor’s examination; need to evaluate diagnoses of other relevant conditions made by several treating practitioners; intercurrent medical condition; Held– Medical Assessment Certificate revoked; maximum medical improvement not reached.

Decision date: 19 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Catherine McDonald, Professor Nicholas Glozier and Dr Julian Parmegiani |Body system: Psychiatric/psychological

Trojan Transport Services Pty Ltd v Hope [2022] NSWPICMP 228

Industrial deafness; appellant employer alleged error in the Medical Assessor (MA) including the losses at the lower frequencies in the assessment of the extent of the impairment due to occupational noise exposure; the MA clearly explained why he excluded the losses in the right ear at 1500Hz and 2000Hhz where they were in excess of the left; apart from this exclusion, the MA’s assessment otherwise included all frequencies from 0.5 to 4Hz; on the audiogram performed by the MA on the day of assessment, the losses at these frequencies follow the typical pattern of occupational noise induced hearing loss due to the nature and duration, being some 50 years, of the worker’s occupational noise exposure; that is, considering the nature and duration of the worker’s occupational noise exposure and the nature and extent of all the hearing losses in the left ear at 0.5 – 4 kHz, it was open to the MA to find that all of the losses including at the low frequencies are compatible with noise induced hearing loss; Held- Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 20 May 2022 (amended 23 May 2022) | Panel Members: Member Jane Peacock, Dr Henley Harrison and Dr Robert Payten |Body system: Hearing loss

Toll Personnel Pty Ltd v Imad [2022] NSWPICMP 229

Employer appeals Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) alleging that Medical Assessor (MA) should have made a deduction pursuant to section 323  of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) in respect of the respondent’s right lower extremity (knee) and that he failed to give adequate reasons for certification of whole person impairment (WPI) on the basis of range of movements; MA described some movements on examination as “totally inconsistent” and stated that the respondent’s presentation was inconsistent with the video surveillance; Held- that (I) there was no error demonstrated in respect of section 323 of the 1998 Act deduction (II) there was error by the MA in failing explain the path by which he certified WPI; Wingfoot applied; after re-examination by a member of the panel MAC revoked and a new MAC issued.

Decision date: 23 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Paul Sweeney, Dr Drew Dixon and Dr Brian Stephenson |Body system: Right upper extremity (shoulder), right lower extremity (knee) and left upper extremity (left middle finger, left ring finger, left little finger and left wrist)

Francesco v Dreamroof Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPICMP 230

Appeal pursuant to section 327(3)(b), (c) and (d) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); in respect of injury to the right upper extremity, thoracic spine and scarring; appellant seeks to rely on availability of additional relevant information in respect of what occurred at the examination of him by the Medical Assessor; Held- finding that such evidence should not be received by the Medical Panel as it did not have real probative value, in the sense that it is reasonably clear that it would change the outcome of the case; Ross v Zurich Workers Compensation Insurance and Lukacevic v Coates Hire Operations Pty Limited relied upon; appellant’s submission that assessment of right upper limb  should be assessed having regard to [2.14] Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed, reissued 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines), and Table 16-27 of AMA 5 rejected; finding that the Medical Assessor’s assessment of WPI as a result of injury to the right upper extremity assessed on the basis of loss of range of movement, should not be disturbed; appellant’s submission that the thoracic spine should be assessed as DRE III, not DRE II, having regard to [1.23] of the Guidelines, rejected; no issue in respect of assessment of scarring; Medical Assessment Certificate confirmed.

Decision date: 23 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Brett Batchelor, Dr Drew Dixon and Dr Margaret Gibson |Body system: Thoracic spine, right upper extremity and scarring

Canon Medical Systems ANZ Pty Limited v Berry [2022] NSWPICMP 231

Appellant challenged the assessment as regards the PIRS category of employability; Medical Assessor assessed a class 5 rating, namely totally impaired; worker had worked regularly since May 2021; Panel agreed a class 5 incorrect having regard to all the evidence; Held- Medical Assessment Certificate revoked.

Decision date: 25 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Deborah Moore, Professor Nicholas Glozier and Dr Patrick Morris |Body system: Psychiatric/psychological

Johnston v Australian Manufacturing Workers Union [2022] NSWPICMP 232

Appeal from assessment of 13% whole person impairment (4% face, 9% skin); whether assessor filed to give reasons for assessing 4% (face) instead of 5%, within the available range for a Class I impairment; whether assessor erred in assessing a Class I impairment in respect of the skin; error identified in respect of the assessment of skin; Held- Medical Assessment Certificate set aside; on further examination, Class II impairment assessed in respect of the skin; replaced with an assessment of 21% whole person impairment (4% face, 18% skin).

Decision date: 25 May 2022| Panel Members: Member Richard J Perrignon, Dr Paul Curtin and Dr Tommasino Mastroianni |Body system: Face and skin

Motor Accidents Merit Review Decisions

BAH v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2022] NSWPICMR 31

Dispute about payment of weekly benefits under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); pre-accident weekly earnings (PAWE); meaning of earner, schedule 1, clause 2 of the  MAI Act; meaning of loss of earnings, schedule 1, clause 3 of the  MAI Act; meaning of earnings; meaning of PAWE, schedule 1, clause 4(1) and 4(2)(b) of the  MAI Act; change in circumstances, schedule 1, clause 4(3) of the  MAI Act; business carried on by company; separate legal entity; Held – the reviewable decision set aside and remitted to the Insurer for reconsideration.

Decision date: 19 April 2022| Merit Reviewer: Katherine Ruschen

Luo v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2022] NSWPICMR 32

Dispute about the amount of weekly payments of statutory benefits under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); calculation of pre-accident weekly earnings (PAWE) under Schedule 1 clause 4(1) of the MAI Act; gross earnings of self-employed;  JobKeeper  payments not gross business income; Held – the reviewable decision is varied.

Decision date: 27 April 2022| Merit Reviewer: Kriesen Seeneevassen

Dispute about statutory benefits that are payable under Division 3.3 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (MAI Act); self-employed claimant, calculation of pre-accident weekly earnings, pre-accident weekly earnings; schedule 1, clause 4 of the MAI Act; deduction of business expenses; application for dismissal of merit review which was lodged late; Held – the reviewable decision is affirmed; late application accepted, clause 7.35 of the Motor Accident Guidelines applied.

Decision date: 18 May 2022| Merit Reviewer: Michael Sofoulis

This publication is for information only. The publication is not legal advice.  The information provided is not a substitute for reading the decisions. The Commission does not accept liability for the information in this publication or for way the information is used.

Subscribeto receive legal bulletins to your inbox.