The panel's role is to form its own medical opinion, applying its expertise independently: court
The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld a medical panel's determination that a tenant’s injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for non-economic loss damages under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), finding that he failed the “significant injury” threshold.
The plaintiff, a tenant of a property owned by a government housing authority, alleged injuries sustained in a fall on a wet carpet at the premises. The injuries included damage to the lumbar spine and right hand, specifically a fracture and reduced grip strength in the fifth finger.
To pursue damages under the Wrongs Act, claimants must meet the "significant injury" threshold, defined as a whole-person impairment (WPI) exceeding 5 per cent. A physician’s initial assessment certified the injuries as exceeding this threshold. However, the matter was referred to a medical panel, which determined that the WPI did not meet the required level.
Using a Jamar dynamometer, the medical panel assessed the plaintiff’s injuries, including reduced grip strength in the right hand. The panel concluded that the grip strength test results were “variable and unreliable,” indicating a lack of maximal effort. As per the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Guides, such results are invalid for determining impairment.
The panel diagnosed dysfunction in the right little finger and lumbar spine but concluded that the combined WPI, excluding pre-existing conditions, was below 5%.
The plaintiff sought judicial review of the medical panel’s decision, alleging a denial of procedural fairness. It was argued that the panel’s conclusion on grip strength testing effectively questioned the plaintiff’s credibility without providing an opportunity to respond.
The court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness in the medical panel’s conduct. It held that the panel’s conclusion about the grip strength results was a technical observation based on established guidelines and not a credibility finding.
The court emphasised that the panel’s statutory role is to form its own medical opinion, applying its expertise independently. The plaintiff’s grip strength testing and the panel’s determination fell within the expected scope of its assessment, and there was no obligation to notify the plaintiff or seek additional input on the variability of the results.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed the medical panel’s determination that the injuries did not meet the significant injury threshold, barring the claim for non-economic loss damages.