A medical panel that reaches a diagnosis contrary to the unanimous opinion of specialist medical practitioners whose reports were before it must explain, at least briefly, why it rejected those opinions and how it arrived at its own diagnosis. Failure to do so renders the panel's reasons inadequate and constitutes an error of law. The statutory framework of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) impliedly requires the panel to take into account its own examination, the s 65(6A) statement, the material provided under s 65(6B), and the medical questions asked.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 23 later cases that cite this judgment.