A review officer's reasons under s 5(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) are sufficient if they discuss the statutory factors in the context of the evidence and expose the reasoning leading to the conclusion on causation, rather than merely listing the factors and stating they have been considered. A decision to prefer some expert medical evidence over other such evidence, with reasons given, involves no error of law but only an error of fact not amenable to appeal on a question of law.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.