The Court held that a Medical Panel's additional diagnoses (adjustment disorder and somatic symptom disorder) that fell outside the scope of the referred medical questions and did not form part of the Panel's answers were of no legal consequence, and accordingly the Panel was not required to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to address those diagnoses before issuing its opinion. The Court confirmed that a Panel's obligation to give adequate reasons extends only to explaining the path of reasoning by which it arrived at the opinion it actually formed on the questions referred, not to explaining the aetiology of unclaimed conditions identified incidentally. The legal unreasonableness ground also failed because the plaintiff's real complaint was about inadequacy of reasons rather than irrationality of the opinion given in answer to the referred questions.
The full text is available to signed-in members.