Event and Time
Event Description
On July 17, 2017, Mr. Atkins was involved in a motor vehicle accident in New South Wales. Following the accident, he claimed damages for injuries to his thoracic spine and right shoulder, which led to a medical assessment by Dr. Truskett, a medical assessor under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). Dr. Truskett assessed Mr. Atkins’s whole person impairment (WPI) at 13%, with specific ratings for the thoracic spine (5%) and right shoulder (8%). This assessment became the subject of a judicial review process initiated by Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance.
Application and Claims
NRMA Insurance, as the plaintiff, applied for a judicial review of the medical assessor’s decision claiming that: 1. Dr. Truskett failed to provide adequate reasons concerning the causation of the injury to the thoracic spine. 2. There was an error in his assessment of the impairment of the right shoulder. 3. Dr. Truskett did not adequately explain his finding on the impairment of the right shoulder. 4. Mr. Lum, the proper officer, erroneously dismissed NRMA’s application for review, not being satisfied that there were material errors in Dr. Truskett's findings.
Judicial Decisions
The court ruled: 1. The time for initiating the proceedings was extended to June 27, 2019. 2. Dr. Truskett's certificate dated January 4, 2019, was set aside for the claims regarding the thoracic spine and right shoulder impairments. 3. The matter was to be reassessed by a different medical assessor. 4. The first defendant (Mr. Atkins) was ordered to pay NRMA’s agreed or assessed costs.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- NRMA's Claims:
- Allegations against Dr. Truskett for failing to provide adequate reasoning for causal relationships in his assessment. - Challenge to the impairment assessment of the right shoulder concerning rounding methods.
- Arguments from Mr. Atkins:
- Insisted that the assessment form indicated no dispute about causation which could absolve Dr. Truskett from providing detailed reasoning. - Additionally argued that Dr. Truskett's rounding decision was within acceptable discretion.