ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — judicial review — alleged error in determining ambit of medical dispute
WORKERS COMPENSATION — referral of medical dispute to medical assessor — assessment of permanent impairment of body parts specified in the referral — employer appealed to Appeal Panel challenging ambit of medical dispute
WORDS AND PHRASES — “medical dispute” — distinction between “injury” and “impairment”
Quick Take
1In workers compensation permanent impairment claims, there is an important distinction between 'injury' (the compensable event) and 'impairment' (the consequential effect on body parts): a claim for permanent impairment is not confined to the body part originally injured but extends to all body parts impaired as a result of that injury.
2Where one party asserts impairment of an entire body region (e.g. the right lower extremity) and the other asserts impairment confined to a specific part within that region (e.g. the right ankle), the actual medical dispute for the purposes of s 319 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) extends to the whole region.
3In determining the ambit of a medical dispute, the terms of the referral are not determinative; the correspondence between the parties, the medical reports, and the claimant's application documents may also illuminate the scope of the actual dispute, consistently with the approach in Skates v Hills Industries Ltd [2021] NSWCA 142.
