A Medical Panel's reasons are adequate where they disclose the path of reasoning, even if they do not expressly resolve every factual inconsistency or make explicit credibility findings, provided the reasons show that the Panel was aware of the inconsistencies and reached its conclusion 'despite' them. The Panel is not obliged to follow a particular path of reasoning pressed by a party. The scope of medical question (b) referrals is limited to paragraph (b) or (c) injuries under the definition of 'injury', and a Panel should not answer such a question where investigation reveals the injury is not of that type.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.