The Richards v Wiley organic/psychological predominance test was applied to dismiss a serious injury application where extensive spinal complaints were unsupported by significant pathology or clinical findings. A trial judge's reference to DSM-5 and prior judicial discussion of medical terms (not in evidence) was held to be erroneous but not material where the remaining evidence independently supported the conclusion. Where medical terms in expert reports have not passed firmly into the lexicon of personal injury litigation, judges should not conduct independent research into their meaning without the clear assent of the parties.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.