A medical panel denies procedural fairness where it treats as determinative a causal hypothesis that was not advanced by either party or any medical report, even where the underlying factual material (here, refugee experiences) was known to the parties. The fact that a medical practitioner raises and rejects a hypothesis in a report is not sufficient to put a party on notice that the panel might adopt it.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.