Oz Cab Pty Limited v Boadu

[2005] NSWWCCPD 126

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Oz Cab Pty Limited v Boadu

[2005] NSWWCCPD 126

APPELLANT:  Oz Cab Pty Limited

RESPONDENT:  Kwaku Boadu

INSURER:CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited

FILE NUMBER:  WCC2123-2005

DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          16 August 2005

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  4 November 2005

SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Admission of medical reports pursuant to Part 10 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003.

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Dr Gabriel Fleming

HEARING:On the papers.

REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:     Bartier Perry Solicitors

Respondent:   Firths, Lawyers

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:  

The decision of the Arbitrator, dated 19 August 2005, is revoked and the following decision is made in its place:

The reports of Dr Evans, dated 11 July 2003; Dr Parameswaran dated 16 September 2004, and Dr Rimmer, dated 17 November 2004 are admitted in the proceedings.

No Order as to Costs

THE APPEAL

1. This is an appeal by the Insurer; CGU Worker Compensation (NSW) Limited, on behalf of the employer, Oz Cab Pty Limited.  The worker is Kwaku Boadu, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on his way home from work, as a taxi driver, on 22 December 2002.

1. Mr Boadu has made a claim for weekly benefits compensation and lump sum compensation for permanent impairment.  The employer disputes liability for those claims and Mr Boadu now brings that dispute to the Commission for resolution.  The Insurer acted for and on behalf of the employer in the Commission proceedings.

1. At issue in the appeal is the admission of medical reports submitted by the Insurer in proceedings before a Commission Arbitrator.  There are three medical reports which were considered by the Arbitrator: Dr Evans’ reported on 11 July 2003, Dr Parameswaran’s report dated 16 September 2004, and Dr Rimmer’s report dated 17 November 2004.  All of these doctors are Orthopaedic Surgeons.

1. On 16 August 2005 the Arbitrator gave a decision, with written reasons, that the Insurer must make an election as to which one of the medical reports of Dr Evans, Dr Parameswaran and Dr Rimmer it relied upon in the proceedings.  As all of these doctors are Orthopaedic Surgeons, the Arbitrator found that the Insurer was entitled to rely upon only one report, in accordance with clause 43 of the Workers Compensation Commission Regulation 2003 (‘the Regulation’). 

1. The Insurer has appealed against this decision, arguing that the reports of Dr Evans and Dr Parameswaran are ‘claims management phase reports’ and should be admitted in evidence in the proceedings.  It also argues that the report of Dr Rimmer should be admitted, as it remains the only report in the specialty of Orthopaedic Surgery, covered by clause 43 of the Regulation.

1. Mr Boadu does not oppose the appeal. 

1. Both parties seek to have the matter determined quickly so the ‘medical dispute’ may be referred to an Approved Medical Specialist. 

1. I am satisfied that the requirements of section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) are met and therefore leave to appeal is granted.

1. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to proceed ‘on the papers’, without holding any conference or formal hearing, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances (section 354(6) of the 1998 Act). 

THE RELEVANT LAW

Part 10 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2003

1. Clauses 43 and 43A of Part 10 of the Regulation (effective from 3 September 2004) provide as follows:

   “43        Restrictions on number of medical reports that can be admitted

   (1)In any proceedings on a claim:

   (a)  only one medical report in any particular specialty may be admitted on behalf of a party to the proceedings, and

   (b)  a medical report in a specialty may not be admitted on behalf of a party to the proceedings if another medical report in that specialty has already been admitted on behalf of the party in any other proceedings on the claim or in proceedings on a related claim.

   (2)Despite sub clause (1) (b), a medical report in a specialty may be admitted in proceedings even if another medical report in that specialty has already been admitted in other proceedings on the claim or a related claim if:

   (a)  the medical report to be admitted is a permissible update (under clause 44) of the medical report already admitted in the other proceedings, or

   (b)  the proceedings are lump sum compensation proceedings and the other proceedings were not lump sum compensation proceedings, but only so as to allow the admission of a medical report provided by the same medical practitioner who provided the medical report already admitted in the other proceedings.

   (3)The medical report allowed to be admitted under sub clause (2) (b) can however be provided by another medical practitioner if the medical practitioner who provided the medical report already admitted in the other proceedings has ceased (permanently or temporarily) to practise in the specialty concerned.

   (4)Sub clause (2) operates only as an exception to sub clause (1) (b) and does not affect the requirement under sub clause (1) (a) that only one medical report in a particular specialty may be admitted in proceedings on behalf of a party.

   (5)For the purposes of this clause, a medical report in more than one specialty is to be regarded as a medical report in each of those specialties.

   (6)In this clause:

   lump sum compensation proceedings means proceedings on a claim for compensation under Division 4 of Part 3 of the 1987 Act (whether or not the proceedings are also proceedings on a claim for any other compensation).
   related claims are claims or further claims for compensation in respect of the same injury, whether or not the claims are in respect of the same kind of compensation.”

   “43A     Restriction on disclosure of medical reports to approved medical specialists

   A medical report is not to be disclosed to an approved medical specialist in connection with a claim unless:

   (a)  the report was admitted in proceedings on the claim, or

   (b)  the report was nominated by the claimant or respondent as the report that the claimant or respondent concerned would introduce in evidence in proceedings on the claim, or

   (c)  the report was the sole report in the particular specialty concerned that was lodged in relation to the claim by the claimant or respondent (as the case may be), or

   (d)  the approved medical specialist calls under section 324 (1) (b) of the 1998 Act for the production of the report.”

1. Clause 45(2) of the Regulation defines a ‘claims management phase report’ as follows:

   “The following medical reports are claims management phase reports:

   (a)  a medical certificate that accompanies a claim for weekly payments of compensation,
   (b)  a medical certificate that accompanies an initial notification of injury,
   (c)  any medical report provided by a medical practitioner as part of and in the course of treatment of the injured worker by the medical practitioner,

   (d)  any medical report provided by a medical practitioner in respect of an examination of the injured worker pursuant to a requirement of the employer in accordance with section 119 of the 1998 Act.”

1. Section 119 of the 1998 Act provides as follows:

   “119Medical examination of workers at direction of employer

   (1)A worker who has given notice of an injury must, if so required by the employer, submit himself or herself for examination by a medical practitioner, provided and paid by the employer.

   (2)A worker receiving weekly payments of compensation under this Act must, if so required by the employer, from time to time submit himself or herself for examination by a medical practitioner, provided and paid by the employer.

   (3)If a worker refuses to submit himself or herself for any examination under this section or in any way obstructs the examination:

   (a)  the worker’s right to recover compensation under this Act with respect to the injury, or

   (b)  the worker’s right to the weekly payments,

   is suspended until the examination has taken place.

   (4)A worker must not be required to submit himself or herself for examination by a medical practitioner under this section otherwise than in accordance with the regulations or at more frequent intervals than may be prescribed by the regulations.

   (5)The regulations may make provision for or with respect to requiring an employer or insurer to provide a worker, a worker’s legal representative or any other person, within the period required by the regulations, with a copy of any medical opinion or report furnished to the employer or insurer by a medical practitioner in connection with an examination of the worker pursuant to a requirement under this section.

   (6)If an employer or insurer fails to provide a copy of an opinion or report as required by the regulations under subsection (5):

   (a)  the employer or insurer cannot use the opinion or report to dispute liability to pay or continue to pay compensation or to reduce the amount of compensation to be paid and cannot use the opinion or report for any other purpose prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section, and

   (b)  the opinion or report is not admissible in proceedings on such a dispute before the Commission.”

1. The issues raised in this appeal have been discussed at length in the previous decisions of Devine v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2003] NSW WCC PD 28, State Transit Authority of NSW v Dadras [2004] NSW WCC PD 87 and Fishburn v Integral Energy Australia [2005] NSW WCC PD 53.

1. Clauses 43, 43A and 44 do not apply to ‘Claims Management Phase Reports’ (State Transit Authority of NSW v Dadras [2004] NSW WCC PD 87). If a party seeks to rely upon clause 45(2)(d) it must demonstrate that the particular report meets the requirements of section 119. Section 119 contains its own prohibition in relation to medical reports admissible in Commission proceedings. Subsection 119(5) restricts reliance on such a report in Commission proceedings where it has not provided to the worker in accordance with the Regulations. It is expressly “not admissible in proceedings on such a dispute before the Commission”.

1. Whether a report is a ‘claims management phase report’ is a question of fact.  This includes the requirement of providing a copy of the report, as required by the Regulation (clause 40). 

BACKGROUND FACTS

1. Mr Boadu filed a statement, unsigned but dated 1June 2005, setting out the particulars of his injury and claim.  On 22 December 2002 he was involved in an accident on the way home from work.  He had returned his taxi to base and was driving his own car along Parramatta Road, Ashfield in the early morning, when a bus struck him from behind.  The force of the impact catapulted his car forward and trapped him inside.  Emergency services attended and transferred him to hospital.

1. Mr Boadu returned to work on suitable duties until May 2003.  Following that, his employer could not provide suitable duties and he was referred to a rehabilitation provider.

1. In June 2003 the Insurer wrote to Mr Boadu requesting that he attend Dr Evans, Orthopaedic Surgeon, to ‘assist with the further assessment of your claim”.  Dr Evans reported to the Insurer on 11 July 2003. 

1. Mr Boadu has been receiving workers compensation by way of weekly benefits since the date of injury, 22 December 2002, however the amount of that compensation is in dispute and is in issue in the proceedings before the Commission.  His claim now includes five dependants.

1. On 21 May 2004 Mr Boadu notified the Employer and the Insurer of a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment, and pain and suffering. 

1. Between May 2004 and August 2004 Mr Boadu corresponded with the Insurer in relation to the correct assessment of his entitlement to weekly benefits compensation.

1. In September 2004 the Insurer wrote to Mr Boadu requesting that he attend Dr Parameswaran, Orthopaedic Surgeon, to ‘assist with the further assessment of your claim”.

1. On 9 November 2004 the Insurer wrote to Mr Boadu requesting that he attend Dr Rimmer, Orthopaedic Surgeon, to ‘assist with the further assessment of your claim”.

1. The Insurer failed to determine Mr Boadu’s claim for lump sum compensation and on 11 February 2005 he lodged an ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ in the Commission.

THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION

1. The Arbitrator’s reasons conclude that:

   “ . . . I am not satisfied that any of the reports of Dr Evans, Parameswaran and Rimmer are case management phase reports. I specifically reject the argument because at the time when the appointments were made the Insurer stated in the letter advising of the appointment that the examination was arranged to assist with their further assessment of the claim, and as such it is to be distinguished by a medico-legal report(sic). It is interesting to note that each of Dr Rimmer and Dr Parameswaran include in their reports a reference to the expert witness code of conduct contained in Schedule 1 of the District Court Rules and agrees to be bound by that code. Each of them goes on to state to the best of their ability the report has been prepared in accordance with that code. Such comments are to my mind clear indicators that they are medico-legal reports prepared with litigation clearly in mind.

   Dr James Evans’ report does not have that caveat contained in his report.  However a simple reading of the report makes clear that he is answering a number of specific questions which are directed towards the status of the injury, whether the condition relates to previous injuries, aggravation to a pre-existing condition and whether “employment is a substantial contributing factor to the injury”.  This line of inquiry does not bring the report within the compass of a claims management phase report.  Rather it is clearly a report commissioned by the Insurer for the purpose of monitoring the workers condition in the expectation of the proceedings.  

   In short, I am of the view that there is a triple duplication of orthopaedic examinations and reports by the Respondent in this matter.  The Respondent must make an election as to which one of Dr Evans, Parameswaran or Rimmer it wishes to rely upon for the purpose of the proceedings and for the purpose of the AMS examination.  The Respondent is entitled to rely on only one of these reports and I direct that the Respondent advise within 7 days of receipt of these Reasons as to which orthopaedic specialist report it intends to rely upon.”

THE APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS

1. The Appellant submits that the Arbitrator erred in:

   ·     “Distinguishing between an employer and insurer within the meaning of section 119” of the 1998 Act,

   ·     “Finding that section 119(1) [of the 1998 Act] only relates to those reports obtained by an employer rather than an insurer”

   ·     Finding that a ‘claims management phase report’ relates to the ongoing management of a worker’s rehabilitation and does not encompass an independent medical report obtained by an insurer after a claim has been duly made.

1. The Appellant submits that the Arbitrator’s distinction between ‘employer’ and ‘insurer’ in section 119 is in error.  It points to the requirement in 119(5) for the “employer or insurer” to provide a copy of the report obtained under the section.

1. The Appellant argues that a section 119 report, by its nature, is obtained only once the worker has made a claim.  It is thus inevitable that such a report is not restricted to reports relating to ongoing treatment and management of the workers rehabilitation obtained only before a claim is made.  At paragraphs 5.15-5.17 of its written submissions the Appellant argues that :

   “ . . . to, therefore, suggest that the report of Dr Parameswaran was obtained for the purpose of legal proceedings is again an error and an interpretation not available to [the] Arbitrator. . . .  An alternative, and quite plausible explanation for the obtaining of the report of Dr Parameswaran, would be that it was a report obtained by the insurer to advise itself on liability and whether the claim it had received should be met rather than prepare for litigation, that would only arise should the insurer deny and/or maintain its denial of liability following the provision of Dr Parameswaran’s report.  In those circumstances, the opinion obtained from Dr Parameswaran was an opinion obtained pursuant to section 119 of the WIM Act and, therefore, is a claims management phase report pursuant to section 45 of the regulation . . .
   . . .
   . . . . It could be found the medical appointment with Dr Rimmer could be classified as a medical examination arranged for the purposes of legal proceedings but that this concession does not mean it has infringed sections 43 and 43A of the regulation as the report of Dr Rimmer is the only medico-legal report from an orthopaedic surgeon it seeks to rely on in these proceedings and the other reports of Dr Evans and Dr Parameswaran are claims management phase reports within the meaning of section 45 of the regulation and are, therefore, allowed to be admitted into the proceedings and referred to an AMS in addition to the report of Dr Rimmer” (sic).

CONSIDERATION

1. The Arbitrator’s reliance upon a distinction between the use of the words ‘employer’ and ‘insurer’ in section 119 of the 1998 Act is without merit.  The section appears to use the terms ‘employer’ and ‘insurer’ interchangeably; creating a right in the ‘employer’ to require the worker “submit himself or herself for examination by a medical practitioner” (section 119(1)) and an obligation on both the ‘employer’ and the ‘insurer’ to provide a copy of a report arising from that examination to the worker (section 119(5)) with serious consequences for non-compliance.  One such consequence is that the report will not be admissible in Commission proceedings.  Clause 40 of the Regulation provides that the worker may request the  “employer or insurer” to provide a copy of the report.  The language of both the Act and the Regulation suggest that there is no distinction between the rights and obligations placed on insurers and employers for the purpose of section 119.  Inevitably the Insurer will be acting for and on behalf of the employer in relation to the workers claim.

1. As stated in Fishburn (at paragraphs 45-47):

45“Whether a report is a ‘claims management phase report’ is a question of fact. . . . The requirements of section 119 must, therefore, be met before it can be relied upon to bring the reports within the exception in clause 45(2)(d). 

46In proceedings in the Compensation Court of NSW (before that Court was abolished on 31 December 2003) there were two distinct procedures governing the medical examination of workers at the request of employers. Section 119 applied only where the matter was not before the Court, or the worker was the subject of a continuing award. However, where a matter was before the Court, the authority for requiring a worker to be medically examined arose by operation of Part 20 Rule 2 of the Compensation Court Rules 1990. The Court considered section 119 of the 1998 Act in the matter of Godfrey v Wollongong Women’s Information Service Incorporated (1999) 19 NSWCCR 74. The particular construction given to section 119 in that case was related to the power to order an examination by a ‘medical expert’ set out in the Court’s Rules.

47The 1998 Act now provides for the Commission to direct that a worker be examined by an Approved Medical Specialist (section 120 of the 1998 Act).  This appears to create a different, yet similarly dual approach (section 119 examination or section 120 examination), to subjecting the worker to medical examination at the request of an employer.  If it does, then there may be a real question as to when the ‘claims management phase’ of a claim for workers compensation benefits finishes (and similarly as to the status of any reports purporting to be obtained during that period).”

1. The Arbitrator’s finding that a ‘claims management phase report’ “does not encompass an independent medical report arranged not by the employer, but by the Insurer after a claim is made” is also without merit.  ‘Claims management phase report’ is defined in section 45 of the Regulation.  The decision in Dadras did not seek to expand or restrict that definition, but considered its application to medical reports that may be otherwise restricted by Part 10 of the Regulation. This issue was further discussed in Fishburn, which is relied upon by the Appellant in the appeal although unfortunately not referred to by the Arbitrator. 

1. In order to rely upon the admission of section 119 reports as ‘claims management reports’ the Appellant must firstly demonstrate that the reports meet the requirements of that section.  If not, then they will not be admissible pursuant to section 119(6) in any event.  The Arbitrator’s inquiry should firstly have been to establish the status of the three reports.

1. Dr Evans report, given on 11 July 2003, was clearly obtained in relation to Mr Boadu’s ongoing claim for weekly benefits compensation.  It pre-dates his claim for lump sum compensation.  It is in fact supportive of his contention that he continued, at that time, to be unfit for his usual duties.  His report diagnosed Mr Boadu as suffering from ‘musculo-ligamentous sprains in the region of the right hip, particularly involving the groin and buttock region”.  He considered that employment was a ‘substantial contributing factor’ to his injury and that he remained fit only for restricted duties. 

1. The Insurer, acting on behalf of the employer, was entitled, pursuant to section 119 of the 1998 Act, to request Mr Boadu attend on Dr Evans for this assessment.  In my view Dr Evans report is a ‘claims management phase report’ pursuant to clause 45 (2)(d) of the Regulation. 

1. Mr Boadu’s claim for lump sum compensation was made through his legal advisor, on 21 May 2004.  Relevant particulars, required by section 282 of the 1998 Act, were provided and attached to the claim were two reports, from Dr Patrick, Orthopaedic Surgeon. 

1. Section 281 of the 1998 Act requires that a claim for lump sum compensation must be determined within one month, in certain circumstances, or within two months “ after the claimant has provided the Insurer all relevant particulars about the claim (section 281 (2)(b) of the 1998 Act). 

1. Both parties have filed copies of correspondence following the claim for lump sum compensation in May 2004.  I can find no correspondence from the Insurer, which denies liability for the claim, at all, or within the requisite statutory period.  Mr Boadu was entitled to bring a dispute about the claim to the Commission upon the expiration of two months i.e. July 2004.  Dr Parameswaran and Dr Rimmer’s reports were requested after that date.

1. There is no evidence that Mr Boadu requested a copy of any of these reports, pursuant to section 119(5) and clause 40 of the Regulation.  Nor is there evidence that notices pursuant to section 54 or section 74 of the 1998 Act were ever given.  The reports are therefore not inadmissible in Commission proceedings by operation of section 119(6) of the 1998 Act.

1. I note the concession made by the Insurer that the report of Dr Rimmer, may be considered to be a ‘medico-legal’ report i.e. a report obtained for the purpose of legal proceedings, rather than to manage the worker’s claim.  It forwarded a letter to Mr Boadu’s solicitor about the appointment with Dr Rimmer.  It was clearly to be obtained for the purpose of contesting Mr Boadu’s claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment, not managing it in terms of his rehabilitation and return to work. 

1. It may be that I am wrong in concluding, as I did in Dadras and Fishburn, that ‘claims management phase reports’ are not excluded by clause 43 of the Regulation.  However unless and until that reasoning is overturned on appeal, or by legislative amendment, it remains my interpretation of the Regulation.  The exclusion of ‘claims management phase reports’ from the restrictions of clause 43 of the Regulation (Dadras) allows the parties to rely upon those reports that have formed the basis of the workers claim and the employer/insurer’s management of that claim.  Treating doctors reports, mandatory reports which accompany a claim for weekly payments compensation, a medical certificate that accompanies notification of injury, medical reports obtained and relied upon by the employer/insurer to terminate or reduce a weekly payment (which must in any event be served on the worker) and medical reports relied upon to dispute liability for the worker’s claim (which also must be served on the worker), all form part of the information that is necessary to manage a claim and ensure that a worker is paid his or her proper entitlements under the statutory compensation scheme.  The exclusion of these reports from Commission proceedings on a dispute does not assist either side.  Nor does it defeat the intention of the legislation to restrict the unnecessary and costly accumulation of medical evidence to support or refute a claim once the parties are in dispute.  Genuine ‘claims management phase reports’ are those that are necessary for the making and determination of a claim and assist in the goal of rehabilitation and returning an injured worker to work as soon as possible.  The restriction in clause 43 of the Regulation is directed at ‘medico-legal’ reports. 

1. In his reasons for decision the Arbitrator refers to the intention of the legislature in enacting restrictions on the filing of medical reports in Commission proceedings.  This was also discussed at length in Dadras and Fishburn.  As the Minister said in the second reading speech on the bill (Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 by the Minister, the Hon. J. Della Bosca),

   “The intent of the amendment in schedule 7 is to minimise doctor shopping whereby multiple reports are sought to maximise the party’s case.  This applies to both injured workers and insurers.” 

   It is not clear to me why the Insurer in this matter sought the opinion of two Orthopaedic Surgeons, on the same issues, at virtually the same time and at significant cost, but in any event this cannot be the basis for the determination of their admissibility. 

1. If ‘claims management phase reports’ were limited to reports obtained prior to the denial, or constructive denial, of liability for the claim, then, in this case both Dr Parameswaren’s and Dr Rimmer’s reports would be excluded from that definition.  However there is nothing in the Regulations (clauses 39, 40 or 45 in particular), section 119 of the 1998 Act, or elsewhere in the legislation, that expresses such a limitation.  The only distinction suggested by the Act and the Regulations is in relation to examination of a worker where a matter is, or is not, before the Commission, i.e. the distinction between a section 119 examination and a section 120 examination.  Section 120 provides that the Commission may require a worker to submit him or herself for examination by an Approved Medical Specialist.  In this case both reports were obtained before proceedings were commenced in the Commission. 

1. The inevitable result of this reasoning is that clause 43 of the Regulation does not prevent the reports of Dr Parameswaran and Dr Rimmer being admitted in the proceedings.  They are within the definition of ‘claims management phase reports’ in clause 45(2)(d) as they are reports requested in accordance with section 119 of the Act.  It may be that such a result was  not the intention of the legislation.  However the incorporation of section 119 reports into the definition of ‘claims management phase reports’, by clause 45(2)(d) of the Regulation, without any guidance as to when the ‘claims management phase’ ends, leads to this result. 

1. The application of clause 43 of the Regulation is not, however the end of the matter.  The Arbitrator retains a discretion in relation to the admission of medical reports, not otherwise excluded by Regulation 43 (Fishburn).  This discretion must be exercised according to law.  Relevant considerations will be the relevance of the particular reports to the issues in dispute in the Commission.  In this matter there is no evidence that this discretion has been considered or exercised by the Arbitrator.  It is clear however that the reports of Dr Parameswaran and Dr Rimmer address the injury claimed by Mr Boadu, are from a medical specialty that is appropriate to make an assessment of his injury and have been served upon him in accordance with the Commission’s rules.  In my view the exercise of the discretion to admit the reports should be exercised in the Appellant’s favour.

1. The Arbitrator’s decision should be revoked and a new decision admitting the reports of Dr Evans, Dr Parameswaran and Dr Rimmer in the proceedings should be made.

DECISION

1. The decision of the Arbitrator, dated 19 August 2005, is revoked and the following decision is made in its place:

   The reports of Dr Evans, dated 11 July 2003; Dr Parameswaran dated 16 September 2004, and Dr Rimmer, dated 17 November 2004 are admitted in the proceedings. 

COSTS

1. The Appellant is successful on the appeal and seeks costs.

1. Mr Boadu has made no opposition to the appeal. 

1. Division 3 of Part 8 of the 1998 Act governs the award of costs in the Commission. 

1. The appropriate order is no order as to costs.

Dr Gabriel Fleming

Deputy President  

4 November 2005

I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF DR GABRIEL FLEMING, DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.

ASSOCIATE