Doctors say Maurice Blackburn has a temperature

Compensation law firm in High Court fighting compensation claim by former salaried partner ... Harassment and humiliation led to anxiety, depression and agoraphobia ... 30 percent psychological impairment ... Can findings of medical panel be challenged?

The High Court yesterday (Tuesday, May 2) heard a challenge by Maurice Blackburn seeking to test the conclusiveness of findings by medical panels in personal injury cases.

Vic Appeals had rejected an argument by the venerable compensation law shop that it should be allowed to bring evidence inconsistent with findings by a medical panel in a case involving one of the firm's former salaried partners.

The respondent, Fiona Brown, claims that for 11 months in 2003 she was "systematically undermined, harassed and humiliated" by a fellow employee at the firm.

She suffered severe anxiety, depression, eczema, headaches and agoraphobia.

In 2006 WorkCover referred her to a medical panel, which found there was a 30 percent psychiatric impairment, and that her condition was "permanent".

Under s.134AB(15 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) this was deemed to be a serious injury, giving rise to a claim of damages at common law.

In its defence Maurice Blackburn Cashman (as it then was) denied that Ms Brown had suffered injury.

She said that the law shop was precluded from going behind the opinion of the medical panel.

Prior to the trial in the County Court, Judge Paul Lacava referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

Ashley, Mandie and Ross held that the appellant was prohibited in the proceedings from asserting or leading evidence inconsistent with the opinion of the medical panel.

VicAppeals relied on s.68(4) of the Accident Compo Act:

"For the purposes of determining any question or matter, the opinion of a medical panel on a medical question referred to the medical panel is to be adopted and applied by any court, body or person and must be accepted as final and conclusive by any court, body or person."

Maurice Blackburn argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that as a result of the combination of s.68(4) and s.134AB(15) of the ACA the opinion of the medical panel has the result that for the purposes of the trial of the damages claim:

• Ms Brown will be deemed to suffer serious injury both as to pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity;
• The opinion of the panel with its "mandated serious injury consequences must be adopted and applied at the trial;
• The law shop is not entitled to put in issue the fact that at the time the panel gave its opinion Ms Brown suffered serious injury, namely a permanent severe mental disturbance or order.

It appears that the insurer is driving this appeal for Maurice Blackburn, otherwise it most likely would have been settled long ago.

See transcript