A Medical Panel that fails to explain why it rejected competing expert opinions provides inadequate reasons constituting an error of law on the face of the record. Section 8 of the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) does not preclude quashing under s 3 where reasons are inadequate. Where a Panel has demonstrated reluctance to elaborate on its reasons, the appropriate remedy is quashing and referral to a new Panel rather than ordering further reasons from the same Panel. The 'could possibly have been a significant contributing factor' test under s 5(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 requires consideration of possibilities, not probabilities.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.