Re Monger; Ex Parte Dutch & Ors

(2001) 25 WAR 96; [2001] WASCA 220

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative writs and orders
3. › Certiorari
4. › Excess of jurisdiction
5. › Error in findings of jurisdictional fact
6. › Whether medical opinion supported by 'medical evidence'
7. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D(6)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative writs and orders
3. › Certiorari
4. › Error of law on the face of the record
5. › Construction of statutory precondition to exercise of power
6. › Whether question of law or question of fact
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Common law damages claims
3. › Preconditions to referral of degree of disability
4. › Meaning of 'medical evidence'
5. › Whether bare opinion sufficient
6. › Whether assessment must conform to statutory criteria
7. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), ss 93D(2), 93D(6), 25, Sch 2
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Common law damages claims
3. › Degree of disability
4. › Method of assessment
5. › Whether 'whole body' assessment permissible
6. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), ss 93D(2), 25, Sch 2

Quick Take

Medical evidence produced under s 93D(6) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) must be material of a medical kind logically capable of supporting the opinion expressed, must relate to specific body parts as provided in Schedule 2/s 25 or the AMA Guides (not 'whole body' assessments), and must indicate permanence. A bare statement of opinion as to a percentage degree of disability is insufficient. The Director must examine the evidence and is not merely a clerical functionary. Evidence from a dental surgeon does not satisfy the requirement for evidence from a 'medical practitioner'.