The Court refused the plaintiff's serious injury application under s134AB(16)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, holding that while a plaintiff may rely on evidence of deterioration in a compensable psychiatric condition occurring after a binding Medical Panel opinion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the consequences properly attributable to the accepted adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood — as distinct from chronic physical pain, perceived injustice grievances, and other non-compensable stressors — had attained the level of severity required by s134AB(37)(c). The Court confirmed that the Medical Panel's findings as to diagnosis, causation and work capacity are binding and cannot be revisited, but that post-panel changes in the severity of the accepted condition may be considered; however, the onus remains on the plaintiff to establish through evidence that distinguishes the contribution of the compensable condition from other causes that the psychiatric consequences have qualitatively progressed to 'severe'. The treating psychiatrist's rediagnosis as persistent depressive disorder could not displace the Panel's binding diagnosis, and the medical evidence was found to insufficiently delineate the contribution of the accepted disorder from chronic pain and psychosocial stressors.
The full text is available to signed-in members.