Australia, Aug. 4 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 4:

1. In June 2014 Mr Bridge was involved in a low-speed motor vehicle accident in which he injured his back and neck. In 2022 he was also involved in a high-speed motor bike accident, but it appears that did not result in any relevant further injury. He has twice undergone spinal fusion surgery and has not worked since the first accident. In 2023 he pursued a claim under s 131 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) for the non-economic loss which resulted from his injuries.

2. The whole person impairment Mr Bridge suffered as the result of the 2014 accident had been repeatedly assessed. There was no question on the available information that before the accident he had suffered degenerative changes in his spine, which had to be taken into account in assessing the impairment which resulted from the accident.

3. QBE did not concede that the injuries Mr Bridge had suffered in the 2014 accident had resulted in greater than 10% whole person impairment, the statutory impairment threshold: s 131. Mr Bridge pursued the resulting medical dispute in the Personal Injury Commission. That dispute was referred to Dr Hyde Page for assessment: s 60.

4. What then had to be considered included that Dr Millons had found that the impairment flowing from the 2014 accident was 41%; Dr Bosanquet finding that Mr Bridge had suffered no whole person impairment as the result of that accident, his impairment having been entirely the result of pre-existing degenerative changes; but Dr Abraszko concluding that his whole person impairment resulting from the 2014 accident was 40%.

5. In December 2023 Dr Hyde Page certified that Mr Bridge's whole person impairment was 18%, he having concluded that the 2014 accident had contributed to his impairment, which he assessed to be 20%, from which he made a 10% deduction for his pre-existing impairment. QBE sought a review of that assessment on the ground that it was incorrect in a material respect: s 63(2). It challenged both the conclusion that the statutory threshold had been satisfied and how account had been taken of the pre-existing impairment in arriving at the 18% whole person impairment.

6. The result was that a delegate of the President of the Commission concluded that there was reasonable cause to suspect that the assessment was incorrect in a material respect: s 63(2B).

7. The assessment certificate was then referred to a Review Panel, which re-examined Mr Bridge and undertook the required new assessment: s 63(3A). It concluded that the whole body impairment he had suffered as the result of the 2014 accident was not greater than 10%, it having been entirely the result of his pre-existing degenerative condition, which had progressed over time. The Panel thus set aside the medical certificate Dr Hyde Page had issued.

8. In this Court Mr Bridge pursues judicial review of the decision of both the Delegate and the Review Panel. He seeks orders setting aside both decisions and referring the matter to the Delegate and/or the President of the Commission, to refer the dispute to a different Review Panel. In summary he contends that:

1) The Panel committed jurisdictional error and/or an error of law on the face of the record:

a) In determining that the injuries caused by the 2014 motor accident did not give rise to permanent impairment greater than 10%; and

b) In failing to give adequate reasons or expose the actual path of reasoning by which it arrived at its assessment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197ce12b27ed5433a8a8d622)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.