The Court held that where the PIRS categories cannot be fully applied to assess a pre-existing condition (here because the worker had died before examination), s 323(2) requires the decision-maker to identify the medical evidence accepted or preferred and then determine by clinical judgment whether a 10% deduction is at odds with that evidence — not to attempt a partial application of the PIRS scales. The Appeal Panel's adoption of Dr Glozier's report was inadequate because it failed to disclose the actual path of reasoning from the accepted medical evidence to the conclusion that 10% was not at odds with it, particularly where examining practitioners had reached differing conclusions about the deduction. However, the Court was not persuaded that the 10% deduction was itself legally unreasonable, given the worker's significant recovery from his pre-existing condition prior to the workplace injury.
The full text is available to signed-in members.