No warm up, No inclinometer, No worries

December 19, 2017

 

Thuong v Liu & Anor [2017] QDC 196  – a case note follows.

 

This was a quantum only case.

 

Two medical experts for the injured person found impairment, ongoing pain and impact on ability to work.

 

The medical expert for the insurer found no impairment, little to explain ongoing pain and no impact on the injured person’s ability to work.

 

The defendant medical expert used an inclinometer, as favoured by AMA guides, and had the person do a warm up, also as preferred by the guides.

 

The insurer submitted the medical expert who most closely followed the AMA guides should be preferred, as set out in the regulations.

 

His Honour Searles DCJ, however, found the injured person was credible, his impact at work being supported by a supervisor and the evidence of the medical experts who did not most closely follow the guides was despite this omission still preferred.

 

An award of $100,000 was made for future economic loss.

 

Comment:

A credible plaintiff, supported by a co-worker, has seen their medical evidence on impairment and employment impact preferred and a substantial future lost earning capacity award made.

Please reload

Recent Posts

Please reload

Archive

Please reload

Tags

I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!

Please reload

Miami Business Centre
2190 Gold Coast Hwy
Miami, Qld 4220
Australia

CALL 0417 748 861

©2017 BY MATUS LAWYERS. PROUDLY CREATED WITH WIX.COM | ARTICLES