Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Rymer

DETERMINATION OF MERIT REVIEW PANEL
CITATION:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Rymer [2022] NSWPICMRP 7
CLAIMANT:	Christophe Rymer
INSURER:	Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
MERIT REVIEW PANEL MEMBERS:	Merit Reviewer Belinda Cassidy Merit Reviewer Susan McTegg Merit Reviewer Katherine Ruschen
DATE OF DECISION:	13 April 2022
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS- Motor Accident Injuries Act (MAI Act); final decision as to assessment of costs following interim decision as to jurisdiction; statutory benefits claim; costs of medical disputes awarded at first instance on an exceptional basis under section 8.10(4) of the MAI Act and assessment of those costs; application by insurer for review of merit review decision; issue as to scope of costs; whole of claim or whole of medical assessment process or limited to Medical Review Panel matter only; issue of interpretation of original decision; issue of quantification of costs; Held- Merit Review Panel has no power to review any part of the merit review decision made in respect of section 8.10(4) of the MAI Act including the scope of cost; Member’s decision allowed exceptional costs of Medical Review Panel matter only; assessment of costs in a scheme where CTP premiums are compulsorily levied requires a level of scrutiny; itemised bill of costs submitted by claimant; original claim for costs in excess of $69,500, original decision certified reasonable and necessary costs of $35,255; Merit Review Panel’s assessment of reasonable and necessary costs of $16,642.50; regulated costs of $1,710 allowed for the review of the Merit Review decision.
Determinations made:	The Review Panel: 1. Revokes that part of the Certificate dated 7 October 2021 issued by Merit Reviewer Plibersek. 2. Assesses the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred by the claimant and recoverable from the insurer for the purposes of section 8.10 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 in the sum of $19,849.50 (inclusive of GST). 3. Allows the sum of $1,881 (inclusive of GST) for the claimant’s costs in connection with this review of Merit Reviewer Plibersek’s decision.

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

General introduction

Christophe Rymer was involved in a collision between the motorcycle he was riding and a car on 8 December 2018. He made an application for personal injury (statutory) benefits on Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, the third-party insurer of the car which Mr Rymer says caused his accident.
Two medical disputes were referred to the Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) of the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) and those disputes were resolved in the claimant’s favour.
A dispute arose between Mr Rymer and the insurer about the payment of the claimant’s legal costs and that dispute was referred to the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission). On 7 October 2021 General Member and Merit Reviewer Plibersek[1] determined that dispute about costs[2].
[1] Because of his dual roles and the issues concerning jurisdiction of each of those roles, the Panel will refer to General Member and Merit Review Plibersek as Mr Plibersek in this decision.
[2] Rymer v Allianz Insurance [2021] NSWPICMR 45 (7 October 2021).
Allianz lodged an application to review that decision and the President’s delegate determined that there was reasonable cause to suspect an error in Mr Plibersek’s decision[3] and a Review Panel (the Panel) has been constituted by the President of the Commission to conduct the Review of Mr Plibersek’s decision (the Review)[4].
[3] Allianz Insurance v Rymer [2021] NSWPIC 534 (14 December 2021).
[4] Because the issue of costs in dispute between the parties includes a dispute about the costs of a medical review, to avoid any confusion, any reference in this decision to “the Panel” or “the Review” is a reference to this Merit Review Panel and the Merit Review it is undertaking. The review of the medical assessment and its panel will be referred will be referred to as “the medical assessment review” and “the Medical Review Panel” or the MRP.

The background to the costs dispute

Mr Rymer’s statutory benefits claim was made on Allianz on or about 20 December 2018[5] and was made under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (the MAI Act). Allianz accepted liability for the statutory benefits claim and paid Mr Rymer his entitlements up to a point 26 weeks after the accident.
[5] The application is document R1 in the insurer’s reply to the original medical assessment application.
Allianz denied any liability to pay ongoing statutory benefits in a notice dated 19 March 2019[6]. While Allianz admitted its insured caused the accident that injured Mr Rymer and accepted that Mr Rymer was not wholly or mostly at fault, Allianz was of the view Mr Rymer had only sustained minor injuries in the accident and was not entitled to any further benefits in accordance with sections 3.11(1) and 3.28(1) of the MAI Act. The allegation of minor injury appears to have been made on the basis of Mr Rymer’s pre-accident medical history.
[6] The liability notice is document R14 in the insurer’s reply to the original medical assessment application.
Mr Rymer sought an internal review of the insurer’s “minor injury” decision and on 9 April 2019, the original decision was affirmed by Allianz[7].
[7] Allianz’s Certificate of Determination is document R19 in the insurer’s reply to the original medical assessment application.
On 17 April 2019, Mr Rymer requested Allianz pay for surgery to his neck. Payment of that surgery was refused by Allianz and an internal review of that decision was requested and presumed to be dealt with[8].
[8] The determination of the insurer in respect of that application is not before the Panel.
On 2 July 2019, Mr Rymer applied to DRS referring the following disputes for assessment:
(a) whether surgical decompression and stabilisation of C7/T1 (with an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion) relate to the injury caused by the accident and whether that surgery was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, and
(b) whether the injuries caused by the motor accident are minor injuries for the purposes of the Act.
Medical Assessor Bodel determined the above disputes in favour of the claimant issuing three certificates and one set of reasons in a combined document dated 9 October 2019. An aspect of Assessor Bodel’s decision that loomed large in the Review of Assessor Bodel’s decision was his consideration of a pre-accident CT scan which was said to have shown no C7/T1 pathology and the claimant’s development of symptoms in that region after the accident.
On 6 November 2019, Allianz lodged with DRS, an Application for Review of that decision and on 3 October 2020, the Medical Review Panel (MRP) confirmed Assessor Bodel’s certificates in respect of the surgical procedure (that had been undertaken by Dr Davor Saravanja) and issued a revised certificate in respect of the minor injury decision maintaining the outcome (an injury was non-minor) but noting a different diagnosis.
On 15 September 2020, the claimant’s solicitor sent an email to DRS and to Allianz that due to:
“… the unusual degree of factual and legal complexity associated with these disputes [being determined by the MRP] … more substantial legal costs have been incurred and we seek pursuant to section 8.10(4) of the Act for DRS to permit costs over and above the regulated amounts to be recovered from the insurer.”
On or about 27 January 2021, the claimant lodged an application for costs with DRS. The dispute about costs relates to some or all of the costs concerning the claimant’s statutory benefits claim and in particular some or all of the costs concerning the work done in connection with the medical disputes outlined above. It was that application that was the subject of Mr Plibersek’s decision of 7 October 2021 which is, in turn, the subject of the proceedings before the Panel.

Preliminary issue as to jurisdiction

The extensive submissions lodged by the parties in the application that was before
Mr Plibersek and in the application for review before the Panel, reveal there was a dispute between Mr Rymer and Allianz about:
(a) whether the claimant should have been permitted to be paid legal costs beyond the sums specified in the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation 2017 (the Regulation) that is whether costs should have been allowed on the “exceptional circumstances” basis and, if so
(b) the amount that should have been allowed that is what costs were “reasonable and necessary”.
The Panel identified a preliminary issue as to the Panel’s jurisdiction and whether it had the power to consider both of the above matters. After receiving submissions from the parties, the Panel determined it only had power to consider the second of those matters[9]. The basis of the decision as to jurisdiction was that an “exceptional circumstances” decision can only be made by the Commission, and in accordance with section 31 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020, the Commission is constituted by one or more division Members (as listed in section 8). Merit Reviewers are decision makers but not division Members of the Commission. The Panel determined that Merit Reviewers including Merit Review Panels only have power under Schedule 2(1)(aa) of the MAI Act to determine whether costs and expenses incurred by a claimant are reasonable and necessary.
[9] Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Rymer (jurisdiction) 23 February 2022 (not yet published)
Following the issue of the jurisdiction decision, the Panel held a teleconference with the parties. The parties agreed that the “exceptional circumstances” decision of Member Plibersek is not amenable to review within the Commission.
The Panel confirmed with both parties that it would proceed on the basis that the Commission had permitted the claimant’s costs to be assessed outside the amounts provided for in the Regulation in accordance with section 8.10(4) and therefore the only matter to be considered by the Panel was the quantum of the costs claimed.

WHAT COSTS ARE TO BE ASSESSED?

The scope of costs issue

The submissions lodged by the parties with the application identified another issue, that is of the scope of the costs in dispute and therefore the work in respect of which costs are to be assessed.
The claimant was of the view that what was being claimed and what was in dispute were the claimant’s costs of the whole of the medical assessment process. The itemised costs claimed[10] commenced with an item of work done on 1 July 2019 and Assessor Bodel’s certificate was not issued until 9 October 2019.
[10] Both those lodged with the original submissions at page 31 of the claimant’s bundle and those lodged with the final submissions.
The insurer’s submissions in support of the application for review suggest that the insurer has paid for the costs of the original disputes that had been assessed by Assessor Bodel and that therefore the costs in dispute for assessment by the Panel are limited to those reasonable and necessary costs of the review of the medical assessment.
The Panel has termed this issue about the whole costs or the limited costs as the “scope of the costs” issue. This issue is, in summary, an issue about whether costs are to be assessed by the Panel for only the work done in respect of the medical review matter (as argued by the insurer) or whether costs are to be assessed for all of the work claimed in the medical dispute (including the original medical assessment and the medical review matter) by Mr Rymer.
This preliminary point concerning jurisdiction will depend on what Mr Plibersek determined, whether he was allowing costs for the whole of the medical assessment process or whether he was limiting costs to the work done limited to the medical review, and in which role he was making that determination.
If Mr Plibersek’s decision as to the scope of costs is a decision made by him as a Member of the Commission, then for the reasons set out in the Panel’s jurisdiction decision, that decision is not amenable to review by this Panel.

Who has power to determine the scope of the costs to be assessed?

Neither the claimant or the insurer engaged with the issue of whether Mr Plibersek’s decision as to the scope of the costs was a decision of the Commission (as constituted by Member Plibersek) or whether it was a decision of Merit Reviewer Plibersek. The submissions are limited to an interpretation of Mr Plibersek’s reasons and what work he was including in his assessment of costs and whether they are reasonable or not.
The awarding of costs and the assessment of those costs are two separate issues. In a court setting, the judge will award costs and determine the basis of those costs (for example on the ordinary basis or on an indemnity basis). The quantification of those costs is then a matter for the parties to agree on or, for the costs assessment process to determine. This bifurcation of costs issues, between the awarding of costs and the assessment of costs is replicated in the MAI Act, as the Panel’s jurisdiction decision determined. The awarding or permitting of costs is a matter for the Commission (constituted by a Member) under section 8.10, and the assessment of costs is a matter for a Merit Reviewer under Schedule 2(1)(aa).
The Panel is of the view that when considering the nature of a statutory benefits claim, legal work is done, and costs could be incurred:
(a)    throughout the whole of a statutory benefits claim from the date it was made to some other date;
(b)    in order to resolve one or more disputes involved in the statutory benefits claim (merit review, medical assessment or miscellaneous claims assessment matter) at first instance, or
(c)    associated with an application for review of a merit review or medical assessment matter connected with the statutory benefits claim.
Section 8.10(1) allows for the recovery of costs incurred “in connection with” a statutory benefits claim. The phrase “in connection with the claim” is quite wide and would appear to cover the whole of the statutory benefits claim, that is point (a) above. The Regulation provides for costs in relation to some matters in (b) and (c) but not (a).
Section 8.10(3) provides an entitlement to recover costs depends about costs being “permitted by … the Commission”. There is nothing in section 8.10 that would appear to limit or restrict the power of the Commission and therefore the Panel is of the view that the Commission can award or permit of costs on any of the three bases identified in 26 (a) – (c) above.
Costs are usually a matter for the exercise of a discretion and whether costs are allowed on the exceptional basis for all of the statutory benefits claim, part of the statutory benefits claim or one dispute in the statutory claim is a matter for the exercise of a discretion. The exercise of that discretion requires the consideration of the circumstances of the claim, the circumstances of the claimant, the disputes involved in the claim, the work done and other matters arising in connection with the claim.
The Panel is of the view that it is a matter for the Commission (and therefore
Member Plibersek) to permit the basis upon which costs are to be awarded (exceptional or regulated) and in doing so to determine the scope of the costs covered by the permission (whether all of the costs in connection with the claim are allowed on the exceptional basis or some lesser portion of those costs).
The Panel is of the view that the specific wording of Schedule 2(1)(aa) restricts a Merit Reviewer and this Panel to a consideration of whether “the costs and expenses incurred by the claimant [as permitted by the Commission] are reasonable and necessary” only. The permission decision is a matter for the Commission and not amenable to review by the Panel.

The decision under review

Mr Plibersek’s reasons at [1] note the insurer was of the view the claimant was entitled to the sum of $1,826 for costs and the claimant was seeking $69,548.60 for his solicitor’s costs.
Mr Plibersek identified at [2] the issues for determination were:
(a) whether the costs and expenses incurred by the claimant were reasonable and necessary, and
(b) whether the claimant is entitled to be paid or recover legal costs beyond the maximum amounts provided for in the Regulation.
In [3] – [15] Mr Plibersek documented the factual background and procedural history including the requests for the concession as to minor injury and the surgical treatment and the internal review applications. He recorded:
(a)    the application for medical assessment included “detailed written submissions and numerous medical reports” [11], the claimant was assessed [12] and the decision of Assessor Bodel was that the claimant had non-minor injuries and the surgery was related to the accident and was reasonable and necessary [13];
(b)    in replying to the insurer’s application for review “the solicitor for the Claimant made detailed written submissions” [15];
(c)    between February and August 2020, the claimant’s solicitors were required to comply with requests from the medical review panel for “numerous documents, scans and submissions” [16];
(d)    the claimant wrote to the insurer putting them on notice that legal costs would be claimed due to the “unusual degree of factual and legal complexity of the medical review” [17];
(e)    the medical review panel had “set out in considerable detail” all the documents, the claimant’s “extensive history”, the further evidence requested and provided [19], and
(f)    the claimant’s x-rays, CT scans and MRIs were sent, by the panel, to radiologist Dr John Korber for his views before the Panel determined the claimant’s injuries were non-minor and the treatment should be allowed [20] – [21].
Mr Plibersek summarised the submissions by both parties and notes at [25] the claimant’s argument that he was not restricted under section 8.10(4)(b) to an award for costs of the dispute only but that what was being claimed has been so limited by the claimant. He also notes at [32] that the insurer argues the claimant was not entitled to legal costs between 1 July and 16 October 2019 because this was before the application for review had been filed, that the insurer has already paid costs in respect to the first instance medical assessments and that the requirement to obtain additional medical evidence concerning causation is not unusual.
Mr Plibersek identified at [47] – [48] the fundamental dispute between the parties was whether “exceptional circumstances exist” to justify the higher payment of costs beyond the Regulation.
In determining that issue Mr Plibersek referred at [49] – [54] to the decision of his Honour Justice Wright in AAI Limited t/as GIO v Moon [2020] NSWSC 714. He noted that decision referred to a category of cases that would be exceptional because there was an ‘unusual degree of factual or legal complexity’ justifying more substantial costs.
Other cases referred to relate to the previous scheme[11] and include San v Rumble
[11] Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999.
(No 2) [2007] NSWCA 259 where Campbell JA said that exemptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors, or a combination of ordinary factors which, although of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as ‘exceptional’. An “exceptional case” does not have to be “unique, unprecedented or very rare” and that each case has to be approached on an individual basis.
Mr Plibersek considered Mr Rymer incurred greater legal costs because of the complexity of the medical evidence and the need for a review by a Review Panel. He noted the insurer had refused to fund the claimant’s spinal surgery requiring the claimant to pay for it himself and that the claimant was the respondent to the MRP matter.
Under the heading “Determination”, Mr Plibersek provided the following reasons:
“[55] Applying the concepts and discussions above about the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’, I find that exceptional circumstances exist in this case.
[56] The exceptional circumstances in this matter are that the Claimant’s solicitor’s preparation and presentation of the dispute involved special skill by the solicitors given the complexity of the medical issues and materials and the volume of material. The solicitors were required to undertake extra work because the matter had unusually complex medical issues involved. They also had a large volume of material they had to collate and present to the Review Panel. The solicitors had to contend with an additional difficulty of a client who, although not under a legal disability, was diagnosed with depression. The solicitors say this made it difficult to get instructions and took longer to deal with the Claimant’s questions and need to explain the dispute process to him. Taken individually these factors may appear ordinary and not amount to exceptional circumstances, but when combined together they can be seen as exceptional.
[57] In Moon’s case, the Court referred to a category of cases considered exceptional, because they involved an unusual degree of factual or legal complexity or for some other reason which required the incurring of more substantial legal costs by a claimant. Moon’s case stated it would be consistent with the objects and other provisions of the MAI Act, including the express terms of sub-sections 8.10(3) and (4), to permit the amount of legal costs recoverable under sub-section 8.10 in such exceptional cases to exceed the maximum fixed by regulation where that was reasonably required to prevent injustice, hardship or some other relevant adverse consequence.
[58] In the present case the Claimant incurred greater legal costs because of the complexity of the medical evidence and the need for a review by a medical assessment Review Panel. I also note that the Insurer initially refused to fund the spinal operation and the Claimant had to fund the operation himself. The Claimant was also the respondent to the Insurer’s review application to the Review Panel. His success at the Review Panel prevented hardship to the Claimant who had suffered debilitating neck and back pain which was only relieved by necessary spinal surgery.
[59] Having found that exceptional circumstances exist in this case, I now have to determine the amount of reasonable and necessary legal costs.
[60] The solicitors for the Claimant submit that if I find that exceptional circumstances exist the full amount of legal costs claimed should be awarded. The reasons they give are as referred to above: the volume and complexity of the medical material and the difficulty they had in getting instructions and explaining the dispute process to a Claimant with a diagnosed depression.
[61] On the other hand the solicitors for the Insurers submit that not all the legal costs claimed should be awarded. They submit that the Claimant resides in Australia, is English speaking and is well-educated. He is not under a legal disability. The Insurer’s solicitors argue that although the matter was complex it was not unusually complex for a Medical Review Panel matter. They also argue that much of the work done by the Claimant’s solicitors was clerical or administrative in character and did not need to be done by qualified solicitors. The Insurer’s solicitors also noted that the Insurer has already made payment for legal costs in connection with the “minor injury” and cervical fusion surgery disputes. Finally, the Insurer’s solicitors submit some of the legal costs claimed by the Claimant’s solicitors was for work done prior to the application to the Review Panel which is not allowable
[62] In addition to the matters raised in the Insurer’s solicitor’s submissions,
I also note the comment by the Review Panel about extra medical material put before the Panel which was not requested by the Panel. The Review Panel noted that some of this documentation was “… not requested by the Panel but was considered relevant by the solicitor”, (AD-1, page 23). In my view this demonstrates that some of the work done by the Claimant’s solicitors for the Review Panel was unnecessary.
[63] I also note that in a claim for damages the hourly rate recoverable for a legal service is three monetary units, which is about $312 plus GST. This is clearly not a market rate, but it is a rate that the MAI Act prescribes for provision of legal services in connection with a claim for damages. The lower than market rate reflects the intention of the legislation to reduce legal costs. In this case the Claimant’s solicitors have charged per unit fees ranging from $30 to $60 or $66 for senior experienced solicitors, (A-5).
[64] When exercising my discretion to determine the amount of legal costs to be paid in exceptional circumstances there is little guidance available in assessing those costs. There is no scale of legal costs nor any schedule of fees in the Commission’s Rules or legislation unlike the maximum costs for legal services set out for regulated matters in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Nor is there a process for a taxation where a taxing officer goes through in detail checking every item claimed against a scale of permitted fees. The discretion to award legal costs in exceptional circumstances must be used consistently with the objects of the MAI Act. These objects include the early resolution of claims and the quick, cost effective and just resolution of disputes. The objects are also to keep premiums affordable and the scheme sustainable. When exercising a discretion, it must be exercised in the way that would best promote the objects of the MAI Act. Accordingly, dealing with disputes quickly and limiting legal costs would be consistent with the objects of the MAI Act and is a relevant consideration when determining legal costs.
[65] In my view it is not appropriate that I deal with the assessment of Claimant’s legal costs on an item-by-item basis. The discretion I have is one which requires me to assess those reasonable and necessary costs for the disposition of the Review Panel dispute having regard to the objects and framework of the legislation.
[66] Taking into consideration the above submissions from the parties, the comment from the Review Panel and the objects of the MAI Act, I find that not all of the legal work claimed by the Claimant’s solicitors for the Review Panel dispute was reasonable and necessary. I award the amounts of $30,800 including GST for the solicitor’s professional legal costs and $4,455 including GST for barrister’s fees.
[67] I have allowed Counsel’s fees because of the essential role Counsel played in drafting written submissions for the Claimant in the dispute.
[68] There is also a claim for the clinical records invoice from Dr Davor Saravanja of $60 plus GST of $6 totalling $66. I will make no formal order for the $60 fee claimed by Dr Saravanja because the Insurer in its written submissions stated it does not dispute the invoice and would pay it on receipt of verification of payment, (R-1, paragraph 3).”

What was determined?

The insurer’s submissions

Allianz’s submissions suggest at [2] - [4] that Member Plibersek was, at [58] of his submissions considering the work done from 1 July 2019 to 8 October 2020 when considering whether exceptional circumstances existed and do not establish the scope of the costs permitted.
Allianz also says at [1], [14] and [25] that the determination of and payment by it of the claimant’s costs for the original medical assessments finalised the issue of costs for that part of the medical dispute and limits the scope of the costs to be reviewed by the Panel to the medical review matter.

The claimant’s submissions

Mr Rymer’s submissions[12] at [6] – [10] note that in Mr Plibersek’s decision from
[12] The “scope of costs” submissions are dated 3 March 2022 and are document AD 18 in the Commission’s electronic file.
[56] - [58] he considered all of the circumstances of the claim and the claimant and the whole of the medical dispute in determining whether exceptional circumstances existed.
The submissions then argue at [11] - [13] that the scope of the costs to be assessed must include all of those factors which determined the existence of the exceptional circumstances and says:
(a)    the complex medical evidence and other matters did not begin with the service of the application for medical review;
(b)    the complexities arose once the dispute with the insurer arose and became “more complex and protracted” with the application for medical review;
(c)    because of the broad reasons for the granting of exceptional circumstances, all of the costs from 1 July 2019 to 8 October 2020 should be considered, and
(d)    to limit the costs to those only in connection with the medical review would not be giving effect to Member Plibersek’s decision about exceptional circumstances.
The claimant confirms at [14] – [15] that the insurer paid the sum of $3,652.35 in accordance with the Regulation for the costs associated with Assessor Bodel’s initial assessments but says these should not affect the scope of costs. The claimant says at [16] that it has removed from its schedule of costs, any items relating to costs already paid by the insurer.

The Panel’s decision on the scope of costs issue

Mr Plibersek’s certificate determined that “the Insurer is to pay the Claimant’s reasonable and necessary legal costs assessed at …”.
The words on the certificate do not help the Panel determine whether the Commission, as constituted by Member Plibersek was allowing costs for the whole of the claim, the whole or the two medical disputes or the medical review only.
The reasons for the decision indicate that Mr Plibersek was aware of the whole versus limited, “scope of costs” issue because in [25] and [32] of his decision, he summarised the parties’ submissions. He also summarised the position of the parties in [60] and [61] although less directly.
In [65] Mr Plibersek says, “The discretion I have is one which requires me to assess those reasonable and necessary costs for the disposition of the Review Panel dispute” and in [66] he says, “I find that not all of the legal work claimed by the Claimant’s solicitors for the Review Panel dispute was reasonable and necessary”. He then goes on to award the amount he has assessed as reasonable and necessary.
The Panel has not been provided with any correspondence between the parties as to the payment of the sum of over $3,500 from the insurer to the claimant. Allianz can certainly make an offer to the claimant to settle the question of costs by the payment of a certain sum, but the Panel does not agree that Allianz can unilaterally determine a costs dispute by the payment of the regulated sum. The Panel is also of the view that the claimant’s acceptance of the regulated sum does not, in the absence of any relevant correspondence, constitute a concession that those are the only costs to which the claimant can be entitled.
The Panel agrees with the claimant that Member Plibersek considered the claim, an allegedly difficult claimant, and the complexity of the whole of the medical dispute process in coming to the decision about whether costs should be awarded on the exceptional basis.
However, when the whole of the decision is read and in particular the concluding paragraphs of [65] and [66], the Panel is of the view that the decision of the Commission as constituted by Member Plibersek’s award of costs was limited to the disposition of the matter before the MRP.
In the light of the Panel’s earlier jurisdiction decision, it follows that that the decision to award or permit costs on the exceptional basis in respect of the MRP is not one amenable to review by the Panel.
The Panel will therefore proceed on the basis that it is considering what costs associated with the MRP matter are reasonable and necessary. It is the Panel’s decision that costs are therefore to be allowed from when the application for review was first received by the claimant’s solicitors.

APPROACH TO THE COSTS ASSESSMENT

Method of assessment

In [65] of his decision, Mr Plibersek said that: “In my view it is not appropriate that
I deal with the assessment of Claimant’s legal costs on an item-by-item basis”.
Mr Plibersek then went on, in [66], to consider the sums claimed and awarded the sums of $30,800 (including GST) for the work of Mr Rymer’s solicitor and $4,455 (including GST) for the work of Mr Rymer’s barrister.
In its submissions placed before the President’s delegate[13] the insurer said that while Mr Plibersek may have given some reasons for why he did not award the whole of the sum claimed for legal costs, he gave no reasons at all to explain why the sum that he did award. The insurer also submitted that the only explanation for allowing the sum of $4,455 for barrister’s fees was that counsel played an essential role in drafting the submissions in response to the application for review. Allianz says it is unable to understand the process by which Mr Plibersek determined costs.
[13] Document A1 in the Commission’s electronic file in particular paragraphs 41 and 42. These submissions are dated 26 October 2021.
The claimant says at [11] – [19] of his original submissions[14] that:
(a)    not all of the costs claimed were awarded;
(b)    the Assessor gave reasons for why he did not allow all of the costs claimed;
(c)    it was open to Mr Plibersek to quantify costs the way he did so as to provide a “quick, cheap and effective dispute resolution service” and to avoid the parties having to proceed to the Supreme Court for an assessment of costs, and
(d)    the sum he allowed was fair and reasonable.
[14] Document R1 in the Commission’s electronic file. These submissions are dated 16 November 2021.
The Panel noted, in its jurisdiction decision that there is a bifurcation of costs decisions in the context of court-based litigation. The judicial officer awards costs and then costs are agreed or if not agreed, assessed by someone else (but not the judicial officer). So too in the context of the costs of an MAI Act statutory benefits claim. The Member of the Commission determines whether costs are to be allowed and if so the basis for those costs (regulated or exceptional) and then, if necessary, the Merit Reviewer assesses or quantifies those costs. On that basis, Member Plibersek awarded exceptional costs and Merit Reviewer Plibersek assessed those costs at $30,800 and $4,550 inclusive of GST.
The Panel notes that Allianz and all insurers in the compulsory third party scheme are “receivers of public money that is compulsorily levied”. The Panel also notes that Merit Reviewers when assessing costs are determining the quantum of costs to be paid out of those public monies which have been compulsorily levied. The Panel is of the firm view that costs should be assessed with a degree of scrutiny particularly in a matter where the amount awarded was over $35,000 and the regulated sum is less than one tenth of that.
The Panel is therefore of the view that it is required to undertake an item-by-item assessment of the costs claimed in order to ensure both full effect is given to the exceptional costs permitted by the Commission and to ensure only those reasonable and necessary costs within the scope of costs are allowed.

The claimant’s itemised costs

The claimant’s solicitor provided a spreadsheet of the itemised costs claimed and forwarded this to the insurer’s solicitor so the insurer’s objections could be noted[15]. There were 308 items claimed in that spreadsheet totalling the sum of $30,800. In addition, the claimant seeks the sum of $4,455 payable to Mr Todd Alexis SC in respect of his legal work drafting submissions in response to the application for review as set out in his invoice dated 25 January 2021[16].
[15] Document AD19 attached to the claimant’s final submissions dated 3 March 2022 document AD 18
[16] Document AD 11 in the Commission’s electronic file.
The itemised list includes the date work was done, a description of work done, the initials of the person who has done the work, the number of six minute units involved in the work and then the value of the work done.
The work is broken up into tasks. There may be several tasks undertaken on one day. Those multiple tasks on one day do not appear to be arranged in a chronological top-down order but a chronological top-up order. For example, on 2 December 2019 there were five tasks recorded. Item 51 is the review of correspondence confirming DRS has received the reply and the matter will be allocated to a proper officer. Item 50 is the drafting of correspondence to Mr Rymer advising him of that DRS correspondence and item 49 concerns the claimant’s response to that correspondence. Clearly item 51 was the first task in that set of three. This arrangement of tasks has not greatly assisted the Panel.
The description of the work is brief, and the source documents have not been provided (for example the correspondence to and from the client or the insurer). The Panel obtained access to the Commission’s electronic medical assessment review file in order to better understand many of the entries involving the parties and the tasks undertaken to resolve the medical dispute.
The Panel notes that the insurer was represented by Ms Ramrahka, an officer of Allianz at least until March 2021 but that at some stage after that, Ms Allen of Moray & Agnew was retained, and she had provided the final submissions for the Panel and undertaken other work in relation to the matter before the Panel. The final submissions with respect, do not engage fully with the steps undertaken in the medical dispute and do not appear to have appreciated all of the work done. For example, the insurer has included all the work undertaken in relation to ‘submissions’ on the assumption that these were the submission lodged with the reply to the insurer’s medical review application when in fact there were submissions lodged with the reply and then requests for information and documentation made by the Panel which had to be answered and which appear to have been coded in the list as ‘submissions’.
The Panel understands from its reading of the file and the claimant’s itemised bill of costs that the following tranches of work were undertaken:
(a)    replying to the application (26 November 2019) and waiting for the proper officer’s decision;
(b)    reviewing the proper officer’s decision (10 February 2020) and awaiting the convening of the panel;
(c)    responding to the MRP’s first request (February 2020) – information, documents and imaging studies were requested by the panel and work was done to obtain them;
(d)    responding to the MRP’s second request (May 2020) – after the first documents were provided, the MRP requested further information and documents including transcription of handwritten notes;
(e)    dealing with the MRP’s decision to obtain an expert opinion from a radiologist (June 2020). This was, in the Panel’s view a critical feature of this case and, having read the MRP’s decision pivotal to the change in the overall matter outcome, and
(f)    pursuing and reviewing the MRP’s decision which was a 32 page detailed document (October 2020).
The Panel also notes the itemised account of costs refers to drafting correspondence. Many of these appear to be emails rather than formal letters. For example, on 11 November 2019 is an item (26) drafting submissions seeking instructions to brief counsel and the next item (27) is the perusal of the reply. The assumption in cases like this is that the first item was an email as was the second. Emails, being less formal, do not require administrative assistance and generally take less time to write.

The insurer’s response

The insurer has marked up that schedule of costs and provided submissions dated 10 March 2022. The submissions include both general arguments (dealt with below) and more specific arguments (dealt with individually):
(a) the claimant’s lawyers cannot recover more than they are paid, and the insurer has not seen the retainer agreement. The Panel notes that section 8.3(4) appears to provide that Mr Rymer’s solicitor cannot be paid or recover costs for any legal services in relation to a statutory benefits matter unless the Commission or the regulation permits it. In other words, this suggests that the claimant’s solicitor cannot be paid by Mr Rymer for anything beyond that which he can recover from the insurer under section 8.10. Therefore, it is not clear to the Panel what the value of seeing the retainer would be and the Panel does not intend to request it;
(b) the intention of the Act was to reduce costs and claimants should not be awarded costs “for work that is common-place within medical disputes and in no way exceptional”. Compiling medical evidence to put before the MRP is not exceptional. The Panel disagrees with this submission. This is straying into the area of the Commission’s decision and not the decision under review. The test of whether costs should be allowed is whether the work was reasonable and necessary as set out in section 8.10(3). The Panel notes the MRP requested documentation be obtained and scans be provided;
(c) costs associated with correspondence to the client, requesting records, correspondence with medical practitioners or the insurer and administrative tasks should not be included. The Panel agrees that solicitor – client costs should not be included and only those party – party costs reasonable and necessary in respect of the MRP matter should be considered, and
(d) costs should be confined to the costs of the medical review application. The Panel has dealt with that submission in its determination of the scope of costs issue.

General observations regarding “reasonable and necessary” costs

Section 8.10(1) of the MAI Act provides that a claimant is entitled to recover from an insurer the “reasonable and necessary” legal costs and schedule 2(1)(aa) of the Act provides jurisdiction to Merit Reviewers to assess those “reasonable and necessary” legal costs.
Section 172(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (the Uniform Law) provides that:
“A law practice must, in charging legal costs, charge costs that are no more than fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and that in particular are
(a) proportionately and reasonably incurred; and
(b) proportionate and reasonable in amount.”
The tests are understandably different because section 8.10(1) is focused on essentially party / party costs in a highly regulated and limited statutory benefits environment whereas the Uniform Law is concerned with solicitor / client as well as party / party costs.
The Panel considers that section 172 of the Uniform Law provides guidance in the exercise of its discretion in assessing what is reasonable and what is necessary and that the concept of fairness is relevant to both.
Section 172(2) requires consideration of the level of skill and expertise of the lawyers doing the work, the level of complexity, novelty or difficulty of the work, the labour and responsibility involved in the work, the circumstances of the matter, the quality of the work done, and the retainer and instructions given.
The Panel also notes that section 172(3) provides that when considering whether costs are fair and reasonable consideration must be given to, amongst other things, “any fixed costs legislative provisions”.
The issue of proportionality is important. Mr Rymer’s entitlement to accident-related treatment and care expenses for life under Part 3 of the MAI Act was dependant on the outcome of the minor injury dispute. So too was his entitlement to recover damages under Part 4. For him, the consequences of an adverse minor injury decision would mean he had no entitlement to any benefits or compensation beyond 9 June 2019. It was also necessary (if not essential) for Mr Rymer’s legal representatives to respond to the requests from the MRP. It was also reasonable for his solicitors to expend considerable time ensuring all relevant documentation was before the MRP and that all relevant scans and imaging were made available to Dr Korber.
Mr Rymer was very much involved in his matter. He requested that he be copied in on all dispute related correspondence. There are days when it appears he contacted his solicitor several times. He appears to have been in possession of his scans and imaging and was involved in the arrangement for their production. These are also matters relevant to the Panel’s decisions in respect of individual tasks and items.

WHAT COSTS ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY?

What is an appropriate hourly rate?

The Panel notes that there are three persons who have undertaken work on
Mr Rymer’s matter as follows:
(a)    ABT – Mr Andrew Tudhope the partner in charge whose hourly rate is $660 per hour (see item 20);
(b)    MM – Ms Maria Mak the solicitor who has undertaken most of the work and whose hourly rate is $600 per hour (see item 8), and
(c)    GMM – Ms Gabriela Montalvo – whose email sign off indicates she was a law graduate in May 2020 before becoming a solicitor by July 2020 and whose hourly rate is $300 per hour (see item 87 for example).
The claimant’s submissions[17] note that Mr Tudhope is a partner with 32 years’ experience as a solicitor and he is an accredited specialist and that Ms Mak is a solicitor with 16 years’ post admission experience which is the equivalent of an accredited specialist. The submissions refer the Panel to the Costs Assessment Rules Committee Guidelines but no copy of these guidelines were provided with the submissions. The document has now been provided[18]. It is essentially guidance material, dated March 2016 which is not binding on costs assessors but is written to encourage consistency and predictability in costs assessments. It provides a range for partners and specialists ($450 - $700 per hour), senior associates ($300 - $500 per hour) and junior solicitor ($200 - $400 per hour).
[17] Document AD7 in the Commission’s file dated 27 January 2021, paragraph 74.4.
[18] Document AD23 in the Commission’s electronic file.
The insurer says that the rate charged by the claimant’s solicitor at $600 per hour is outside the hourly rate recoverable for conferences or an assessment conference in connection with the assessment of a claim for damages ($321) as set out in the Regulation.
The hourly rate is prescribed in the Regulation for conferences (with clients, witnesses and so on) associated with the assessment of a claim for damages or for costs beyond the first two hours of an assessment conference. The Panel notes that in a claim for damages the claimant’s solicitor is allowed to “contract out”’ and charge more than the Regulated fees.
The Panel also notes that in this matter, Member Plibersek has determined that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the payment of costs beyond the fees (including any hourly rate) prescribed in the Regulation. The Panel is therefore of the view that the hourly rate provided in the Regulation is not determinative of the hourly rate that could be applied in Mr Rymer’s matter but is a guide only. This aligns with section 172(3) of the Uniform Law.

In the Panel’s view a reasonable and proportionate hourly rate is $450 per hour for
Mr Tudhope and Ms Mak and $300 per hour for Ms Montalvo.

Should counsel have been briefed?

The insurer says that retaining counsel was not justified, “counsel, let alone Senior Counsel, was not necessary and disproportionate to the issues in dispute”. Mr Todd Alexis SC was briefed to “settle” the submissions filed with the reply to the insurer’s application for the medical review.
The insurer also argued that the amounts claimed for drafting the submissions were excessive and that the five pages of submissions would not have required more than one day’s work one day (7.5 units) for which the claimant should be allowed the sum of $2,405. The insurer says that the claim for 21 hours ($12,600) from a senior associate and 13 hours ($3,900) from a junior solicitor and the assistance of counsel in drafting the submissions was not reasonable and that the claimant should be entitled to recover costs of one or the other but not both.
The Panel agrees with this submission. The issue in dispute in the review was causation, that is the nature and extent of the injuries resulting from the accident. The claimant had pre-existing conditions which were relevant to causation. Causation is, in the Panel’s experience an issue that arises in many motor accident matters and one in which personal injury accredited specialist and equivalent solicitors are well versed. A medical review is essentially a paper-based dispute resolution process and therefore the skills of a barrister-advocate are not reasonable or necessary particularly in the light of the significant experience of Mr Tudhope and Ms Mak.
The Panel will not therefore allow counsel’s fees or any of the work associated with briefing counsel.

Costs incurred before application for review received

Costs incurred before the service of the application for review (items 1 – 19) are not reasonable and necessary in the panel’s view in the light of the “scope of costs” decision at [46] - [54] above.

Administrative tasks

The costs guidelines referred to by the claimant’s solicitor provide an hourly rate of $75 – $150 for clerks and secretaries and suggests that if the hourly rate includes secretarial and administrative services, additional hours should not be added.
The Panel is not of the view that administrative work cannot be charged at all, or that administrative work undertaken by the partner, senior solicitor or junior solicitor should in all cases be charged at a lesser rate. The Panel has given consideration to individual items and adjusted the units claimed in some instances to balance the reasonable time taken for a legal practitioner to do the administrative work with the lower rate for administrative and support staff.
The Panel notes the claimant’s submissions at [64] indicate that the claimant was very much involved in his proceedings before the MRP. The claimant’s solicitors undertook much of the work obtaining the medical records and scans (from
Mr Rymer’s chiropractor, physiotherapist and pre-accident GP) to ensure the treatment providers remained co-operative.
The Panel notes that in particular there was a significant amount of work done obtaining notes and transcriptions of notes from:
(a)    Ashley Hall – chiropractor;
(b)    Stephen Hill – physiotherapist, and
(c)    Vale Medical practice.
There were many entries concerning the cost of obtaining these records and transcriptions. While these tasks were generally administrative, there were times when intervention from a solicitor appeared necessary. The Panel considered this work should be allowed and considered that a global amount of two hours should be allowed for this[19].
[19] This entry has no number but appears between 240 and 241 in the attached table.

Conclusion

The Panel has provided its detailed reasons in the column of the attached document for each item of costs claimed.
The total sum which the Panel assessed as reasonable and necessary is $16,425 to which should be added the sum of $1,642.50 in GST.
The parties agreed that in accordance with the Motor Accident Injuries Regulation - Schedule 1 Part 1 (1) Merit Review (3) the claimant is entitled to recover the sum of $1,710 for the regulated costs associated with the review of Merit Reviewer Plibersek’s decision to which should be added the sum of $171 for GST.

Itemised assessment of costs

Notes:

“DRS” means Dispute Resolution Service
“MRP” means the Medical Review Panel.
“DRO” means a Dispute Resolution Officer who is a member of staff of the DRS or Commission. They have been distinguished as DRO 1 and DRO 2 as the Panel considers it is not necessary to include their names.
Words in square brackets are words that have been inserted by the Panel to clarify or explain the description provided.

Date	Description	Initials	Units		Value	Allowed
1.	1/07/19	Consider Dr Saravanja's letter regarding causation of injury	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
2.	2/07/19	Telephone attendance with you regarding Operation report and outstanding matters for DRS	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
3.	29/07/19	Review correspondence from you enclosing letter of Dr Saravanja providing an update	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
4.	31/07/19	Draft correspondence to you requesting recent scan to be submitted so I can attach them as additional documents to the DRS applications	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
5.	12/08/19	Review correspondence from you enclosing scan of neck	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
6.	12/08/19	Draft correspondence to you regarding outstanding operation report	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
7.	12/08/19	Review correspondence from you regarding physiotherapy treatment to your hip	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
8.	14/08/19	Draft correspondence to barrister regarding advice about appointment of medical officer	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
9.	21/08/19	Review correspondence from you regarding submissions regarding the surgery	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
10.	30/08/19	Perusal of correspondence from you together with your MRI report	ABT	2		$132.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
11.	23/09/19	Draft correspondence to DRS regarding additional documents	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
12.	23/09/19	Review correspondence from you regarding Assessment and additional documents	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
13.	2/10/19	Review correspondence from you regarding Assessor Bodel's assessment and matters to discuss requiring action	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
14.	8/10/19	Review correspondence from you regarding Dr Bodel assessment and next steps	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
15.	15/10/19	Review correspondence from DRS regarding Certificate of Medical Assessor Bodel	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
16.	15/10/19	Review Certificate of Medical Assessor Bodel	MM	9		$540.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
17.	15/10/19	Draft correspondence to you regarding Certificate of Assessor Bodel	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
18.	16/10/19	Review correspondence from you regarding conference and expenses	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
19.	16/10/19	Draft correspondence you in reply regarding interest concerns and expenses paid to date and how to calculate total expenses	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Scope of costs [54]
20.	8/11/19	Consider guidelines and legislation regarding review process	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N - research - solicitor has considerable personal injury expertise
21.	8/11/19	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 regarding interpretation of the guidelines regarding a review	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - research - solicitor has considerable personal injury expertise
22.	8/11/19	Review [insurer's] application [for review of] of Minor Injury Dispute	MM	8		$480.00	$225.00	Allow 30 minutes. 48 minutes unreasonable
23.	8/11/19	Consider submissions of application in reply to review application	MM	6		$360.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplication - thinking not doing
24.	8/11/19	Draft correspondence to DRO-1 seeking an extension of time to lodge reply	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - application just received, no need for extension at this time
25.	11/11/19	Telephone attendance with you regarding submissions, next steps, briefing barrister and treatment	MM	4		$240.00	$180.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
26.	11/11/19	Draft correspondence to you Todd Alexis, regarding submission and reply due date	MM	2		$120.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 for one unit (letter to client) but not letter to counsel
27.	11/11/19	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 regarding date submissions due	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – no need for extension at this time
28.	11/11/19	Review correspondence from you regarding briefing barrister and next steps	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable to obtain written instructions and allowed at $45 per unit -
29.	11/11/19	Draft correspondence to Insurer requesting extension to lodge reply	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - application just received, no need for extension at this time
30.	11/11/19	Review correspondence in reply from Insurer regarding timing for reply	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - application just received, no need for extension at this time
31.	11/11/19	Draft submissions in reply with reference to supporting documents	MM	35		$2,100.00	$1,575.00	Conceded by the insurer and allowed as reasonable and necessary at $45 per unit
32.	11/11/19	Review further correspondence from Insurer regarding reply	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - application just received, no need for extension at this time
33.	12/11/19	Review correspondence from DRO-1 regarding reply to application and due date	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - application just received, no need for extension at this time
34.	12/11/19	Draft correspondence to Todd Alexis re: due date	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
35.	15/11/19	Review correspondence from you regrading appointment with Dr Saravanja	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - appears to be claim related no evidence dispute related
36.	19/11/19	Further drafting of submission in reply	MM	35		$900.00	$675.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit (note 35 units claimed but presumed 15 units only as corresponding value of $900 equates to 15 units @$60)
37.	22/11019	Draft brief to Counsel enclosing Application and Reply	MM	9		$540.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
38.	22/11/19	Draft correspondence to Todd Alexis regarding submissions	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
39.	22/11/19	Draft correspondence to Todd Alexis regarding application forms	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
40.	25/11/19	Draft correspondence to barrister regarding submissions	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
41.	25/11/19	Telephone attendance with Todd Alexis regarding submissions	MM	6		$360.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
42.	25/11/19	Review correspondence from you regarding Dr Saravanja's report	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - no evidence there was a need to obtain this report at this time
43.	26/11/19	Review Submissions finalised by Todd Alexis and draft changes	MM	5		$300.00	$0.00	Counsel not allowed [78]
44.	26/11/19	Draft Application for Reply of Review of Medical Dispute	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit - drafting of reply form not subs
45.	26/11/19	Telephone attendance with you to confirm lodgement of submissions	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
46.	26/11/19	Draft correspondence to DRS, DRO-1 enclosing Submissions	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - admin and part of 44
47.	2/12/19	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 to confirm receipt of reply [to] application	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N duplication - purely admin
48.	2/12/19	Review correspondence from you regarding reply [to] application and failure of DRS to provide acknowledgment of Application	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
49.	2/12/19	Review correspondence from you regarding deadline for Proper Officer to respond	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
50.	2/12/19	Draft correspondence to you advising of reply application being receipt and next steps regarding allocation to Proper Officer	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
51.	2/12/19	Review correspondence from DRS acknowledging receipt of Reply and application and advising of allocation to Proper Officer	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
52.	6/12/19	Review correspondence from you regarding next steps at SIRA	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
53.	6/12019	Draft correspondence to you regarding SIRA and timetable of decision	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client and duplication
54.	17/12/19	Review correspondence from you regarding Proper officer failure to make decision by due date	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
55.	17/12/19	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 to discuss delays	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
56.	17/12/19	Review correspondence from DRO-1, DRS regarding delays and reallocation of Proper Officer	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
57.	17/12/19	Draft correspondence to you regarding progress of claim and the frustrations regarding delays	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
58.	17/12/19	Draft correspondence to DRO-1 requesting all correspondence be forwarded to client as well	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
59.	17/12/19	Telephone attendance with Tiffany to further discuss correspondence from you	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplication and purely administration
60.	6/01/20	Review correspondence from you regarding Dr Saravanja's letter	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - no evidence there was a need to obtain this report at this time
61.	6/01/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding update	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
62.	15/01/20	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 to request an update regarding the referral to the proper officer	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplication of 63
63.	20/01/20	Draft correspondence to DRO-1 regarding update of proceedings	MM	2		$120.00	$45.00	1 unit reasonable and allowed at $45
64.	20/01/20	Review correspondence from you following up DRA on a response	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
65.	22/01/20	Telephone attendance with DRO - 1	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
66.	22/01/20	Telephone attendance with Dispute Resolution Service	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
67.	22/01/20	Review correspondence from you to follow up DRS	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
68.	22/01/20	Draft correspondence to you advising of updates	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
69.	28/01/20	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 - attempted call and then to general line DRS regarding failure to respond	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
70.	05/02/20	Telephone attendance Keegan from DRS to delay with my complaint	MM	5		$300.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client and complaint, not this dispute
71.	05/02/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding DRS decision and steps to take	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
72.	10/02/20	Review Proper Officer's decision and reasons to refer to Panel	MM	6		$360.00	$225.00	One hour – 10 units reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit for both items
73.	10/02/20	Telephone attendance with you regarding Proper Officer's decision	MM	6		$360.00	$225.00
74.	10/02/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding 2015 scan and imaging notes and what was presented to Dr Bodel	MM	5		$300.00	$225.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 (not allowed in 35, 42 and 60 – report now necessary)
75.	10/02/20	Review your correspondence, reply and estimate of time frames to finalise DRS	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
76.	10/02/20	Consider guidelines regarding binding decision of medical review	MM	6		$360.00	$0.00	Not R & N - research - solicitor has considerable personal injury expertise
77.	11/02/20	Telephone attendance with you regarding collection of invoice and submission of expenses and statutory declaration of wages	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
78.	11/02/20	Draft correspondence to DRS regarding further documents to be submitted	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit – panel request
79.	11/02/20	Review correspondence from you regarding scans and next steps	MM	5		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
80.	11/02/20	Review your correspondence regarding CT scan	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
81.	11/02/20	Telephone attendance with DRS regarding the delay in allocating a reviewer for the dispute and requesting the issue be escalated	GMM	3		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
82.	12/02/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding additional scans and CD and putting additional material before the panel	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
83.	12/02/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding SIRA agenda and expediting the matter	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
84.	12/02/20	Draft correspondence to [you] arrange further material to be produced to DRS	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 - 1 unit
85.	14/02/20	General received CD with CT scans to send to DRS but was unable to open and view images. I tried opening each image in different applications but was unsuccessful	GMM	3		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N – IT / administrative task
86.	17/02/20	Preparation of letter to DRS enclosing burned CD of CT	GMM	15		$450.00	$0.00	Not R & N – same work as 94
87.	17/02/20	Telephone attendance with DRS to confirm whether USB or CD was most suitable to send CT scans	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – administrative task not necessary for solicitor
88.	17/02/20	Preparation letter to Allianz enclosing USB with CT scan	GMM	6		$180.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed in part but 6 units excessive similar letter to 86
89.	17/02/20	Review correspondence from you regarding the conduct of your claim and next steps	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client and repetitive
90.	17/02/20	Review correspondence to you regarding outcome of Bodel's Assessment	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client and repetitive
91.	17/02/20	Telephone attendance with you to discuss outstanding matters	MM	4		$240.00	$180.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
92.	17/02/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding CT scans	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client and repetitive
93.	18/02/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding delivery of CT scan and copies for the Review Panel	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 - 1 unit
94.	19/02/20	Preparation letter to DRS with copies of two USBs with CT Scans.	GMM	9		$270.00	$225.00	Reasonable in part and 5 units allowed at $45 per unit – burning of CDs and USB preparation IT / administrative task
95.	25/02/20	Review previous correspondence from you and Allianz regarding outstanding matters requiring your further instructions	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – repetitive and duplication
96.	28/02/20	Telephone attendance with DRS re the CT scans sent to them for the review	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – no evidence why this was necessary and why 2 units
97.	3/03/20	Draft correspondence to DRS to determine medical dispute	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N to remind a statutory authority of its duty
98.	10/03/20	Correspondence with Allianz regarding the documentation necessary in submitting for your claim.	GMM	4		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
99.	11/03/20	Telephone attendance with DRS regarding outstanding matters for Review Panel	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – a week since last follow up
100.	16/03/20	Telephone attendance with DRO-1 regarding the appointment of the panel and further steps	MM	4		$240.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed in part – 1 month since documents filed follow up reasonable but 24 minutes excessive
101.	16/03/20	Review correspondence from you regarding determination of [matter]	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client and repetitive
102.	16/03/20	Review correspondence regarding outstanding surgery costs	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
103.	16/03/20	Draft to you regarding outstanding payments	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
104.	23/03/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding allocation of panel	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 – 1 unit
105.	1/04/20	Review correspondence from Allianz regarding past out of pockets expenses	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
106.	8/04/20	Draft correspondence to Allianz regarding outstanding out of pocket expenses and outstanding treatment	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
107.	22/04/20	Telephone attendance with you regarding DRS [request] for further information and discuss steps to obtain outstanding information	MM	8		$480.00	$360.00	Reasonable and allowed in part – allow 8 units at $45 per unit for 107 – 110 remainder excessive and duplication
108.	22/04/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding outstanding information	MM	3		$180.00
109.	22/04/20	Review correspondence from you requesting Dr Roberts’ file	MM	1		$60.00
110.	22/04/20	Review correspondence from you regarding outstanding matters from DRS	MM	3		$180.00
111.	27/04/20	Review correspondence from you regarding matters outstanding for DRS	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of 110
112.	27/04/20	Review correspondence from you regarding next steps	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of 111
113.	28/04/20	Review correspondence from you enclosing physiotherapy notes, scans and chiropractor notes	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – date possibly wrong and duplication of 117 which is allowed in full
114.	29/04/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding further documents [MRP] requires	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit to check what you have and responding to Panel request
115.	29/04/20	Draft replies to you regarding additional information requested [by the MRP]	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit as documents still not to hand
116.	29/04/20	Review Medicare History Statement to answer [MRP] requests for additional information	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
117.	29/04/20	Review physiotherapy notes and consider whether a further request for note from the chiropractor is appropriate	MM	5		$300.00	$225.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
118.	29/04/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding [MRP] request for additional [material] and steps requires to obtain it	MM	5		$300.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of work involved in 113 - 117
119.	29/04/20	Review correspondence from you regarding authorities for Medicare	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit (see letter 21 May)
120.	29/04/20	Draft correspondence in reply to Allianz indicating a Medicare request has already been made	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplication or matter concerning whole of claim not dispute
121.	30/04/2020	Review clinical notes provided by your physiotherapist - Hill	GMM	6		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate 113
122.	1/05/20	Review Dr Ashley Hall [chiropractor] Medical Notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate 113
123.	4/05/20	Review correspondence from Allianz regarding request for authorities and reply	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – appears to be claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
124.	5/05/20	Review correspondence from you requesting [assistance] to collect the information requested by DRS	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
125.	6/05/20	Consider and review outstanding tasks to complete	GMM	4		$120.00	$60.00	Reasonable and allowed in part – 2 units at $30 per unit
126.	6/05/20	Review correspondence from you regarding DRS outstanding matters and treatment update	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – re outstanding matters – duplication. Re treatment update claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute or solicitor / client
127.	11/05/20	Review correspondence from you regarding notes collected for DRS	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client and duplication of 124
128.	12/05/20	Review clinical notes and drafting a response to the DRS	GMM	24		$720.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of 131 (131 allowed)
129.	12/05/20	Telephone attendance with you in regards to missing information for DRS response	GMM	2		$60.00	$60.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit – MRP request for documents
130.	12/05/20	Correspondence with Dr Saravanja and Dr Roberts requesting missing information	GMM	4		$120.00	$120.00	Reasonable and allowed in part at $30 per unit – documents requested by MRP
131.	12/05/20	Review documents required to provide to DRS	MM	5		$300.00	$225.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
132.	13/05/20	Review correspondence from you regarding cortisone injection	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – claim related - no evidence this is relevant to matter in dispute
133.	15/05/20	Telephone attendance Dr Robert's office requesting the clinical notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable to follow up request from MRP and allowed at $30 per unit
134.	15/05/20	Correspondence with you regarding the notes by Dr Saravanja and the notes requested of Dr Roberts	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable to follow up request from MRP and allowed at $30 per unit
135.	15/05/20	Consider and review the notes provided by Dr Saravanja	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of 136
136.	15/05/20	Review of documents and preparation of response to DRS	GMM	30		$900.00	$600.00	Reasonable but excessive and allowed in part. Documents requested by MRP to be provided. Allow 20 units at $30 per unit Chronology not requested and duplication and or solicitor / client
137.	15/05/20	Preparation Chronology of the material previously provided to Dr Bodel and SIRA	GMM	10		$300.00	$600.00
138.	18/05/20	Preparation response to DRS	GMM	39		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of 136 either on basis of 39 units claimed or $90 value claimed
139.	19/05/20	E-mail to DRS regarding the delivery of the scans and films.	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – administrative task regarding address to send scans and films
140.	19/05/20	Draft correspondence to you requesting clarification of hip injury	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable in light of disputes and allowed at $45 for 1 unit
141.	19/05/20	Review scans and settle letter to DRS regarding service	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00	Reasonable and proportionate for senior solicitor and allowed at $45 per unit
142.	19/05/20	Review clinical notes of Dr Roberts and consider further deterioration of hip injury	MM	7		$420.00	$315.00	Reasonable and allowed in part - 7 units duplication of 140 re hip injury
143.	20/05/20	Correspondence to DRS providing notice of delivery of scans	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – unnecessary administrative task
144.	20/05/20	Correspondence with you regarding details of where to deliver scans	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – simple administrative task
145.	20/05/20	Correspondence with the DRS [explaining] the delay in responding to their email	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
146.	20/05/20	Review for privileged correspondence in attachments to DRS	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	No R & N – duplication of work done in 136 – should have been done at the time
147.	20/05/20	Draft and settle letter to DRS with submissions	MM	9		$540.00	$1,305.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit. While some duplication may exist with 136 and 137 the Panel notes the letter of 21 May to DRS was lengthy and provided 122 pages of material requested by the MRP not previously provided. In addition, answers were given to questions raised by the Panel
148.	20/05/20	Review and clinical notes being attached to letter to DRS and settle letter	MM	8		$480.00
149.	20/05/2020	Review imaging notes for hip MRI scan and consider whether to provide to DRS	MM	2		$120.00
150.	20/05/20	Draft submissions in reply to the Panel	MM	10		$600.00
151.	21/05/20	Review with Gabriela all clinical notes provided by client and remove double up of attachments and discuss renaming documents	MM	20		$1,200.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of work
152.	21/05/20	Further review with Gabriela the attachments for DRS dispute	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of work
153.	21/05/20	Draft and further update reply to [MRP request]	MM	6		$360.00	$270.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit for editing lengthy letter
154.	21/05/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding class action	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – not relevant to this dispute
155.	21/05/20	Further review reply to [MRP] (admin)	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplicate and excess to 153
156.	21/05/20	Preparation of the response to the [MRP requests]	GMM	44		$1,320.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplicate of 147 – 150 and others
157.	21/05/20	Correspondence to DRS enclosing our response and supporting material	GMM	3		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of work done by MM
158.	22/05/20	Correspondence with you regarding the tax invoice for Dr Saravanja notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – admin and solicitor / client
159.	25/05/20	Review matter and consider outstanding matters	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00	Reasonable to check all documents submitted and allowed at $45 per unit
160.	26/05/20	Consider and preparing invoices for reimbursement by insurer of medical notes paid by you	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – administrative task
161.	26/05/20	Review correspondence regarding disbursements and application for costs	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – premature request for costs.
162.	28/05/20	Telephone attendance with DRS confirming receipt of scans sent on 19 and 20 May 2020	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – unnecessary to follow up – administrative task in any event
163.	29/05/20	Review clinical notes on file to prepare response to DRS	GMM	6		$180.00	$180.00	Reasonable to respond to request from DRS and allowed at $30 per unit
164.	29/05/20	Correspondence with Pittwater Physiotherapy requesting clear [copy of] notes	GMM	2		$60.00	$60.00	Reasonable to respond to request from MRP and allowed at $30 per unit
165.	29/05/20	Preparation [of] the additional documents requested by DRS [MRP]	GMM	5		$150.00	$0.00	Not R & N – administrative task and duplication of 168 and 163 both allowed
166.	29/05/20	Telephone attendance with you regarding the DRS Response	GMM	3		$90.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
167.	29/05/20	Correspondence with you regarding the DRS [MRP] response requesting additional documents	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of 166
168.	29/05/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding [2nd request] for additional documents [for MRP] and liaise with Gabriela regarding next steps	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable to consider 2nd request from MRP and allowed at $45 per unit
169.	31/05/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding next steps for DRS and information	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
170.	31/05/20	Review correspondence from you in reply regarding the collection of information as requested by DRS	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client, duplication of 166 and 167
171.	1/06/20	Preparation of additional documents requested by SIRA	GMM	5		$150.00	$0.00	Not R & N – covered by 165 - 168
172.	1/06/20	Correspondence with Vale Medical Practice requesting clinical notes from 9 Jan 2019 to date	GMM	9		$270.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed in part – almost one hour considered excessive – allow 3 units (note 2 units for below similar telephone enquiry)
173.	1/06/20	Telephone attendance with Pittwater Physiotherapy	GMM	2		$60.00	$60.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
174.	1/06/20	Settle letter to Vale Medical Practice for requesting clinical notes	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate 172
175.	1/06/20	Consider with ABT and GM how to best ask physiotherapist for clearer notes	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - internal conference not necessary
176.	1/06/20	Telephone attendance with you to discuss the purpose of the request for further information	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client and duplication
177.	1/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding cost of obtaining notes	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
178.	2/06/20	Telephone attendance with Vale Medical Practice	GMM	2		$60.00	$60.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
179.	2/06/20	Consider the remaining tasks in preparation to respond to DRS request	GMM	1		$30.00	$60.00	Reasonable noting multiple requests from DRS / MRP and allowed at $30 per unit
180.	3/06/20	Correspondence with insurer requesting they reimburse you for the clinical notes by Vale Medical Practice	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed – 1 unit
181.	3/06/20	Correspondence with the DRS regarding the clinical notes provided by Mr Hall	GMM	3		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplication
182.	3/06/20	Telephone attendance with you regarding the insurer requesting the transcribed notes	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
183.	3/06/20	Correspondence with insurer regarding whether they will reimburse you for the costs associated with [MRP] request for further clinical notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable noting multiple requests from DRS / MRP and allowed at $30 per unit
184.	3/06/20	Telephone attendance with DRS regarding clarification as to whether they require notes by Mr Ashley Hall [chiro] or Mr Steven Hill [physio]	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
185.	3/06/20	Correspondence with Pittwater Physiotherapy requesting that the request for transcribed documents be put on hold	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client noting 180 and 183
186.	3/06/20	Review correspondence from Allianz regarding physiotherapy notes	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
187.	3/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding further information required from DRS	MM	2		$670.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client and duplication and excessive units or excessive cost per unit
188.	4/06/20	Correspondence with the insurer requesting them to pay the invoice by Vale Medical	GMM	2		$60.00	$30.00	Reasonable in part and allowed at $30 for 1 unit
189.	11/06/20	Correspondence with you providing you an update regarding the request to Mosman Chiropractic Centre for transcribed clinical notes by Ashley Hall	GMM	1		$30.00	$60.00	Not R & N – these tasks are generally administrative in nature see 241
190.	11/06/20	Correspondence to Mosman Chiropractic Centre to request a quote for transcribed notes by Ashley Hall	GMM	2

191.	11/06/20	Telephone attendance with to Mosman Chiropractic Centre to request a quote for transcribed notes by Ashley Hall. I was directed to email	GMM	1		$30.00
192.	11/06/20	E-mail to the insurer requesting confirmation as to whether the Pittwater Physiotherapy clinical notes have been transcribed and received yet	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N - follow up unreasonable
193.	11/06/20	Correspondence with you regarding the need to purchase the Pittwater Physiotherapy clinical notes. I confirmed that the insurer will cover the cost and will provide us with a copy of the notes	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
194.	11/06/20	E-mail to DRS requesting confirmation as to whether notes by Ashley Hall need to be transcribed	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable due to DRS confusion in names Hall / Hill and allowed
195.	11/06/20	E-mail to Insurer following up on Invoice for Vale Medical Notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are generally administrative in nature see 241
196.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with Pittwater Physiotherapy regarding the request for transcribed notes. Confirmed they have not received a request	GMM	1		$30.00
197.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with insurer confirming payment for Vale Medical notes made. Remittance being sent. They also confirmed that they paid for an independent transcription service for the Pittwater physiotherapy notes. They also confirmed that we can provide them with a quote for Ashley Hall's notes and they'll pay for it.	GMM	1		$30.00
198.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with Ashley Hall's admin confirming the price for to have the notes transcribed	GMM	1		$30.00
199.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with Vale Medical practice confirming payment has been made for the clinical notes. They confirmed that they will send the notes on Monday	GMM	2		$60.00
200.	12/06/20	Correspondence with Vale Medical practice providing a copy of the remittance confirming payment has been made for the clinical notes	GMM	1		$30.00
201.	12/06/20	Consider and discuss the remaining documents requested and what we need to provide the DRS	GMM	6		$180.00	$180.00	Reasonable noting multiple requests from DRS / MRP and allowed at $30 per unit
202.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with you, returning your call to speak about the recent progress	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
203.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with DRS confirming the need to have the notes by Ashley Hall transcribed and the status of the remaining documents requested	GMM	2		$60.00	$30.00	Reasonable in part and allowed at 1 unit
204.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance and a follow up email to Pittwater Physiotherapy confirming that they need to provide the tax invoice for the transcribed notes	GMM	4		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are generally administrative in nature see 241
205.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with the insurer confirming that an invoice will be provided for the Pittwater Physiotherapy notes to be transcribed	GMM	2		$60.00
206.	12/06/20	Telephone attendance with Ashley Hall's admin confirming details on the invoice to then forward it to the insurer to pay	GMM	1		$30.00
207.	12/06/20	E-mail to the insurer providing a copy of the invoice to transcribe Ashley Halls notes	GMM	5		$150.00
208.	15/06/20	Telephone attendance with Pittwater Physiotherapy requesting that they send the invoice for transcribing the notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are generally administrative in nature see 241
209.	15/06/20	E-mail to insurer requesting they pay the invoice provided by Pittwater Physiotherapy for the transcription of notes	GMM	3		$90.00
210.	15/06/20	Telephone attendance with Vale Medical Centre requesting they send the clinical notes. They confirmed they would send them tomorrow	GMM	1		$30.00
211.	15/06/20	Consider cost to transcribe clinical notes	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – nothing produced merely considered
212.	15/06/20	Review [Medicare] claims history statement since 2016 and draft email in reply	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of 116 and no evidence necessary at this time or related to dispute
213.	16/06/20	Telephone attendance with Vale Medical confirming they had posted the clinical notes by express post due to the size	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – administrative task see 241
214.	17/06/20	E-mail to you enclosing the agreement and confirmation that you will need to pay the chiropractor’s invoice	GMM	3		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
215.	17/06/20	Draft of the agreement that you will be refunded the $275.00 from the chiropractor if the insurer pays	GMM	7		$210.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
216.	17/06/20	Correspondence with the insurer requesting confirmation that the invoices will be paid	GMM	5		$150.00	$60.00	Reasonable and allowed in part – 2 units at $30 per unit
217.	17/06/20	Telephone attendance with Pittwater Physiotherapy requesting they start transcribing the notes. They requested an email to confirm our conversation	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are generally administrative in nature see 241
218.	17/06/20	Correspondence with Pittwater Physiotherapy requesting they start transcribing the notes	GMM	2		$60.00
219.	17/06/20	Correspondence with Mosman Chiropractic Centre requesting they start transcribing the notes	GMM	1		$30.00
220.	18/06/20	Correspondence with the insurer requesting they pay the invoices	GMM	3		$90.00
221.	18/06/20	Correspondence with Ashley Hall requesting confirmation that the notes will be provided prior to the 25 June 2020 and that a refund will be issued if the insurer pays the invoice	GMM	3		$90.00
222.	18/06/20	E-mail to you providing confirmation that Ashley Hall will provide notes prior to the 25 June 2020 and that a refund will be issued if the insurer pays the invoice	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
223.	19/06/20	E-mail to Pittwater Physiotherapy confirming insurer will pay invoice	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are generally administrative in nature see 241
224.	19/06/2020	E-mail to Ashley Hall confirming insurer will pay invoice	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00
225.	19/06/2020	E-mail to you confirming the insurer will pay invoice	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
226.	19/06/2020	E-mail to insurer requesting prompt payment and a remittance advice asap	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are administrative in nature see 241
227.	19/06/2020	Telephone attendance with Pittwater Physiotherapy confirming that they require payment before transcribing the notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00
228.	19/06/20	Telephone attendance with you requesting that you pay the invoice provided by Pittwater Physiotherapy and they will reimburse you when they receive the payment from the insurer	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
229.	19/06/20	E-mail to Pittwater Physiotherapy confirming that they require payment of the tax invoice will be paid asap	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – this task is administrative in nature see 241
230.	19/06/20	Telephone attendance with you confirming that you would pay Pittwater Physiotherapy for the transcription	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
231.	22/06/20	Review and consider Vale Medical Practice clinical notes	GMM	8		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of 237
232.	22/06/20	Review and consider Pittwater Physiotherapy transcribed notes	GMM	3		$90.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of 237
233.	22/06/20	Review and consider Mosman Chiropractic Centre transcribed clinical notes	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of 237
234.	22/06/20	Draft correspondence to you in reply to C7/C8 comments in 2015	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
235.	22/06/20	Draft correspondence and advise to you regarding symptoms	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
236.	22/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding comments from physiotherapist and chiropractor	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable to obtain instructions before responding to MRP’s request
237.	22/06/20	Review Vale Clinical Notes, Chiropractor notes and physiotherapy notes	MM	14		$840.00	$630.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
238.	23/06/20	Preparation of supporting documents to send to DRS	GMM	9		$180.00	$180.00	Conceded by insurer and allowed as reasonable and necessary at $30 per unit
239.	23/06/20	E-mail to Pittwater Physiotherapy confirming receiving transcribed notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – these tasks are administrative in nature see 241
240.	23/06/20	E-mail to Mosman Chiropractor confirming receiving transcribed notes	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00
Various	No specific claim for these units but note various items from 186 to 240.	GMM	20		$30	$600.00	See paragraphs [91] – [92] of the decision allowance for administrative work needed to be done by junior solicitor
241.	23/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding symptoms of injuries following 2015 scan and compare with new injury post-accident	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of 234-236 and the Panel notes, the MRP requested additional material which required gathering documents and forwarding them to DRS - no submission were requested, no submissions were provided, the documents were sent by email
242.	23/06/20	Draft submissions to DRS regarding clinical notes and observations	MM	5		$300.00	$225.00	Conceded by insurer and allowed as reasonable and necessary at $45 per unit
243.	23/06/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding DRS reply	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client
244.	24/06/20	Preparation response to DRS.	GMM	5		$150.00	$0.00	Not R & N duplicate of 242
245.	24/06/20	Review and settle correspondence to DRS	MM	4		$240.00	$0.00	Not R & N – excessive 244, 247 and 248 allowed
246.	24/06/20	Telephone attendance with you to consider submissions to DRS regarding treatment	MM	8		$480.00	$225.00	Not R & N – excessive see 243 – allow 5 units at $45
247.	24/06/20	Draft submissions to DRS	MM	12		$720.00	$540.00	Conceded by insurer and allowed as reasonable and necessary at $45 per unit
248.	25/06/20	Draft submission with supporting documents to DRS	GMM	4		$120.00	$120.00	Conceded by insurer and allowed as reasonable and necessary at $30 per unit
249.	26/06/20	Draft response to the DRS with supporting material.	GMM	7		$210.00	$0.00	Not R & N duplicate of work done by MM
250.	26/06/20	Correspondence with the DRS, providing the additional documents.	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N duplicate of work done by MM
251.	29/06/20	E-mail to DRO-2 with an updated link to access the documents requested	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N duplicate of work done by MM and administrative
252.	29/06/20	E-mail to you regarding the DRS decision to seek a diagnostic radiology opinion and our submission regarding your disc extrusion	GMM	3		$90.00	$90.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit for 2 units
253.	29/06/20	Draft and settle submissions	MM	4		$240.00	$180.00	Conceded by insurer and allowed as reasonable and necessary at $45 per unit
254.	29/06/20	Review and settle correspondence to you regarding radiology request from DRS	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of work done by GMM and allowed at 252
255.	29/06/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding further radiological opinion	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
256.	29/06/20	Telephone attendance with DRS regarding radiology and request for a copy [of letter to Korber]	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable in light of critical importance of Korber’s opinion and allowed at $45 per unit
257.	29/06/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding next steps regarding radiologist	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N - duplicate of work done by GMM and allowed at 253
258.	29/06/20	Draft correspondence to Dr Saravanja requesting further details of opinion	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – no request from MRP for this and no evidence it is related to this dispute. Solicitor / client but see 270
259.	29/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding concerns of radiologist opinion and further evidence	MM	2		$120.00
260.	29/06/20	Review correspondence form you regarding concerns of questions to Dr Saravanja	MM	2		$120.00
261.	29/06/20	Draft correspondence to you with revised approach to Dr Saravanja	MM	4		$240.00
262.	29/06/20	Telephone attendance with you to consider next steps and radiologist opinion	MM	4		$240.00	$90.00	Reasonable in part and allowed at $45 per unit for 2 units note 252, 254 and 257
263.	30/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding concerns with information provided to radiologist	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client but see 269
264.	30/06/20	Review correspondence from you regarding Dr Saravanja's clinical notes	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client but see 269
265.	30/06/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding scans to radiologist	MM	3		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor / client but see 269
266.	30/06/20	Review post-operative scans and images ordered by Dr Saravanja	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
267.	1/07/20	Consider what scans the [MRP] radiologist should have	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplication of 272 but see 269
268.	1/07/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding [scans]	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N solicitor /client but see 269
269.	1/07/20	Telephone attendance with you to consider whether radiologist has been properly briefed	MM	5		$300.00	$450.00	See 258 – 261, 263 – 265, 267 – 268. While a large part of these appear to be solicitor / client type costs they relate to what is the critical evidence for the panel – the claimant’s imaging studies that were provided to Korber. It was essential that the DRS/MRP had the correct imaging studies and therefore this work is reasonable and necessary and the various tasks are allowed at one hour of the senior solicitor’s time.
270.	1/07/20	Draft correspondence to DRO-2 DRS requesting letter of instructions	MM	2		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplicate of 256 admin task to follow up
271.	1/07/20	Consider response to DRS regarding the scans that need to be hand delivered	GMM	2		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – administrative task
272.	6/07/20	Telephone attendance with [DRS], following up on the email sent on 1 July 2020 requesting a copy of the letter of instruction	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable follow up one week after first enquiry and allowed
273.	6/07/20	Review further email from you regarding concerns that the radiologist does not have the full history	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplicate of 276
274.	6/07/20	Draft correspondence to you to provide update and arrange further collection of scans	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable to put in writing and allowed at $45 per unit – compliance with request from MRP
275.	6/07/20	Draft correspondence to DRS following up on request for letter of instruction of radiologist	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplicate of 272
276.	6/07/20	Review further correspondence from you regarding instructions to radiologist and relevant documents he should have available with him for consideration	MM	3		$180.00	$450.00	It is not clear in what order the work on this day was done – it appears to be related to following up the letter from the MRP to Dr Korber and then the receipt and review of that letter. The report from Dr Korber was critical and it was essential for the correct documents to go to him. As it transpired two reports were obtained from Dr Korber, The Panel considers 1 hour reasonable and necessary for the senior solicitor to do this work.
277.	6/07/20	Telephone attendance with you to discuss letter of instructions to radiologist and further information required	MM	9		$540.00
278.	6/07/20	Draft correspondence to DRS regarding further documents to be present to the Insurer	MM	3		$180.00
279.	6/07/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding correspondence to DRS	MM	1		$60.00
280.	6/07/20	Review correspondence from DRS enclosing Review Panel letter of instruction [to Korber]	MM	1		$60.00
281.	6/07/20	Review CT of the injection [procedure] of C7/T1 for panel	MM	2		$120.00
282.	7/07/20	Review correspondence from you regarding consistencies with letter instruction to radiologist and draft reply	MM	3		$180.00	$135.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit – the scans which were before Dr Korber and the Panel were critical to the outcome of the medical assessment. It was essential for the senior solicitor to have a complete understanding of the scans and undertake these tasks
283.	7/07/20	Telephone attendance with you to discuss concerns regarding radiologist opinion	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00
284.	7/07/20	Draft and settle correspondence to DRS regarding scan upload	MM	2		$120.00	$90.00
285.	7/07/20	Downloading and preparing the contents from the CDs provided with your CT/EOS scans for the DRS Panel to access, download and review online with correct programming	GMM	15		$450.00	$450.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit. As per 282 – 284 and others – this was a critical part of the proceedings and reasonable for solicitor to ensure scans correct
286.	8/07/20	Downloading and uploading contents from CD with CT of the Paravertebral Injection Cervical Spine on 21 March 2019 to send to DRS	GMM	4		$120.00	$0.00	Not R & N – task for IT and / or admin or included as part of 285
287.	8/07/20	E-mail to DRS providing a link with access to a copy of the contents on the CD with CT of the Paravertebral Injection Cervical Spine on 21 March 2019	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
288.	9/07/20	Review and consider whether to submit additional documents to assist your claim with the DRS	GMM	6		$180.00	$0.00	Not R & N – all work with additional documents done. No further request from Panel.
289.	13/07/20	Email to DRS requesting date for Review Panel teleconference	GMM	4		$120.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 but excessive claim – email is one line
290.	15/07/20	Review correspondence from DRS regarding the next teleconference	MM	1		$60.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit
291.	15/07/20	Draft correspondence to you regarding Review Panel's decision	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor /client
292.	15/07/20	Telephone attendance with DRS requesting confirmation of when Dr Korber is anticipated to provide a copy of his report	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – duplicate of 289
293.	15/07/20	Correspondence with you regarding deadline for report by Dr Korber	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 - 1 unit
294.	16/07/20	Email to you notifying date report by Dr Korber is due	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – solicitor /client and duplicate of 292
295.	28/07/20	Draft correspondence to DRS regarding update	MM	1		$60.00	$0.00	Not R & N – less than 2 weeks since last enquiry 291
296.	3/08/20	Review the DRS legal portal for a response from DRS regarding your claim	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 – 1 unit
297.	3/08/20	Correspondence with DRS requesting an update on the report by Dr Korber	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – updates requested too frequently – administrative task to check.
298.	4/08/20	Correspondence with DRS regarding report by Dr Korber	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00
299.	17/08/20	E-mail to DRS requesting a copy of Report by Dr Korber.	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00
300.	19/08/20 assume 21/08/20	Review report of Dr Korber, radiologist (report dated 19/08/20 but not provided by DRS until 21/08/20)	MM	8		$480.00	$360.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit. Note Panel assumes wrong date of entry, but this task was necessary
301.	20/08/20	E-mail to DRS requesting copies of the two reports by Dr Korber and update on date of teleconference.	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – only 3 days since last enquiry 298
302.	20/08/20	E-mail to you confirming we have requested from DRS copies of the two reports by Dr Korber and update on date of teleconference.	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N - solicitor / client
303.	21/08/20	E-mail to you enclosing the reports by Dr Korber, explaining the results	GMM	4		$120.00	$120.00	Reasonable and allowed at $30 per unit
304.	21/08/20	Correspondence with DRS regarding the report by Dr Korber and the teleconference	GMM	1		$30.00	$0.00	Not R & N – only one day since last enquiry 301
305.	24/09/20	Telephone attendance with DRS requesting an update on the decision by the panel.	GMM	1		$30.00	$30.00	Reasonable (one month elapsed since last enquiry) and allowed at $30 per unit
306.	30/09/20	Telephone attendance with DRO-2 from SIRA	MM	2		$120.00	$45.00	Reasonable and allowed at $45 – one unit
307.	8/10/20	Review DRS decision and certificate	MM	6		$360.00	$225.00	One hour – 10 units reasonable and allowed at $45 per unit for both items
308.	8/10/20	Consider DRS decision and certificate with you	MM	6		$360.00	$225.00
TOTAL					$16425.00 + GST $1,642.50 = $18,067.50

[2022] NSWPICMRP 7

13 April 2022