Zarko Cicarevic v Anthony Sheehan
[2016] VSC 530
•5 September 2016
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
S CI 2016 00040
| Zarko Cicarevic | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| Anthony Sheehan & ors | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | Macaulay J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 August 2016 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 5 September 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Zarko Cicarevic v Anthony Sheehan & ors |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 530 |
---
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Application for judicial review of decision of medical panel — Whether medical panel ignored relevant considerations or had regard to irrelevant considerations — No error of law.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For Mr Cicarevic | Mr Z Cicaravic | Appearing in person |
| For the Seventh and Eighth Defendants | Mr M Wheelahan QC with Ms M Norton | Minter Ellison |
HIS HONOUR:
In May 2001 the plaintiff (Mr Cicarevic) sustained an injury in the course of his employment with the eighth defendant (Tyco Electronics). Following lodgement of a claim for compensation, the seventh defendant (QBE) made weekly payments to Mr Cicarevic, but discontinued those payments effective 7 October 2003 on the ground that he had a current work capacity at that time.
Mr Cicarevic commenced a proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court against Tyco Electronics, seeking reinstatement of weekly payments from 27 March 2008 onwards. At Mr Cicarevic’s request made under s 274 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) (Act) questions were referred to a medical panel constituted by the first to sixth defendants (the Panel). The questions referred to the Panel, and the answers given by it, are set out in the Certificate of Opinion and its Reasons for Opinion dated 28 October 2015 (Reasons).[1]
[1]See plaintiff’s Exhibit A, document 1.
By this proceeding, Mr Cicarevic seeks judicial review of the Panel’s opinion on the grounds set out in his handwritten document filed on 22 April 2016 (Plaintiff’s grounds).[2] Mr Cicarevic was represented by solicitors in the Magistrate’s Court proceeding when he made his request for a medical panel to answer medical questions. But he prepared and filed his application for judicial review in this court and represented himself in the conduct of the trial itself.
[2]A copy-typed version was attached to the defendants’ written submission.
As is customary, the Panel did not appear at trial but wrote to the court advising that, in accordance with the law stated in R v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal & Ors; Ex Parte Hardiman,[3] it would submit to such orders as the court might make and only wished to be heard should the court contemplate making a costs order against it. Tyco Electronics and QBE (who, for convenience, I will refer to as the defendants) appeared to oppose the relief sought by Mr Cicarevic.
[3](1980) 144 CLR 13, 35.
Objections to evidence relied on by Mr Cicarevic:
Among the materials filed by Mr Cicarevic were 15 documents on which he relied to demonstrate error on the part of the Panel. At an earlier directions hearing, an associate judge had marked documents 1 to 8 as Exhibit A and documents 9 to 15 as Exhibit B. Documents in Exhibit B were marked for the purposes of identification only as they were subject to objection as to admissibility. At trial I heard argument from the parties concerning their admissibility.
The content of the documents comprising Exhibit B is as follows:
(a) documents 9 to 11 and 13 relate to Mr Cicarevic’s earlier County Court serious injury application and the 2007 settlement of that proceeding;
(b) document 12 relates to Mr Cicarevic’s 2007 Magistrates’ Court statutory benefits claim, a claim that was dismissed by consent of the parties; and
(c) documents 14 and 15 relate to correspondence between Mr Cicarevic and QBE regarding the termination of his entitlement to payment of medical and like expenses.
The documents mostly concern the settlement of earlier proceedings relating to claims Mr Cicarevic made in connection with the injuries for which he now seeks weekly payment. He may well feel a sense of grievance with the way those earlier proceedings were resolved. There may even be a kind of logical connection between those settlements and the current matter in that, had he succeeded in those proceedings he would not need to be making his present claim. But this is not an appeal or review of those settlements.
Documents 14 and 15 have some bearing on an issue argued before me. As will be seen below, Mr Cicarevic argued that the Panel took account of a wrong fact, namely that he had not been taking medications whereas in fact he had been. In that connection, he sought to show that statements to the effect that payment of his medical and like expenses had been terminated were incorrect because, in fact, he had continued to receive some treatment and medications which were paid for. I will deal with this contention below, but the point for now is that documents going to that question are broadly relevant. Indeed, the defendants sought to meet this type of evidence by adducing evidence of further correspondence[4] which showed that QBE’s termination of payment of medical and like expenses contained an express exception. The exception was that payments would continue to be made for consultations with a general practitioner and medications prescribed by that practitioner for the work related injury.
[4] Exhibit AAP-8 to the affidavit of Amanda Paul sworn 13 April 2016.
Otherwise, I accept the submissions of the defendants that, apart from documents 14 and 15, the documents in Exhibit B are irrelevant to the question to be decided in this proceeding, and thus inadmissible. None of those documents were placed before the Panel. Further, they are not capable of rationally affecting[5] the Court’s determination of whether the opinion ought be set aside.
[5] Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 55.
Principles and the role of a medical panel:
The principles governing an application for judicial review of an administrative decision are well established.[6] Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the exercise of a power.[7] Therefore, the ambit of judicial review is largely confined to whether the decision-maker has accorded procedural fairness,[8] has made an error of law, has failed to take account of mandatory relevant considerations, or has taken account of irrelevant considerations.[9] Because judicial review is concerned with the legality of a decision, it is not an opportunity for a party to challenge the merits of a decision, or for a court to substitute its own decision in preference to that of the original decision-maker.
[6] See generally Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Anor v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Ors (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39 -42 (Mason J), and Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, 175-180..
[7] Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 26 (Brennan J).
[8] Masters v McCubbery [1996] 1 VR 635.
[9] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, 349 [75] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
The role of a medical panel under the Act is to give an opinion in respect of medical questions referred to it under Division 3 of Part 6 of the Act.[10] A medical panel performing this function is bound to take account of matters including a worker’s answers to questions asked of him or her and to documents submitted by the worker and the referring body.[11]
[10]Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) s 302.
[11]See Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 17 [60] and footnote 33, citing Wingfoot Australian Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480, 498 [47]. While these cases concerned the function of a medical panel under the now repealed Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), the function of medical panels under the Act is the same.
A medical panel is required to give a written statement of reasons that is sufficient to set out the actual path of reasoning by which it arrived at its opinion.[12]
[12]Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic )s 313(2). In Wingfoot Australian Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 the High Court identified, at [55], the content of the obligation to give reasons under the corresponding provision in the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic).
The Panel’s opinion
The Panel comprised six medical practitioners: two psychiatrists, an occupational physician, a pain management physician, a neurologist and a rheumatologist.
The questions referred to the Panel for its opinion and the answers to those questions were:
Question 1What is the nature of the Plaintiff’s medical condition relevant to the injuries pleaded in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim?
Answer:In the Panel’s opinion, the Plaintiff suffered from a temporary exacerbation of a pre-existing bilateral L5 pars defect with an L4-5 spondylolisthesis, but this exacerbation subsequently resolved.
The Panel is therefore of the opinion that there is no current medical condition of the lumbar spine, attributable to any alleged injury. The Panel also is of the opinion that there is no medical condition of the neck or lower limbs.
The Panel is also of the opinion that the Plaintiff is currently suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, attributable to the accepted injury.
Question 2Did the worker,
A) in the period from 27 March 2008 to date, or
B) otherwise during some part of that period (specify the period),
have no current work capacity?
Answer:The Panel is of the opinion that the Plaintiff had, and has, no present inability arising from an injury such that he was, and is, not able to return to his pre-injury employment.
Question 3If the Plaintiff has no current work capacity, is he likely to continue to have no current work capacity?
Answer:Not applicable.
Question 4If yes to questions 2 and 3 (of the Plaintiff’s referred medical questions), does the Plaintiff’s incapacity for employment still result from, or is it still materially contributed to by the alleged injuries which occurred on or about 7 May 2001 in the course of the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant?
Answer:Not applicable.
The Panel’s Reasons disclose that Mr Cicarevic was examined by two of the doctors on 10 September 2015 and four doctors on 15 September 2015. On each occasion the Panel members were assisted by a professional Serbian language interpreter.[13]
[13]Mr Cicarevic was also assisted by an interpreter in the proceeding before me but managed admirably for the most part without the need for assistance.
The Reasons span seven and a half pages. They record Mr Cicarevic’s history and current state, both in respect of claimed symptoms in his back, legs and neck and also his psychiatric symptoms. The Panel referred to his present lifestyle and living situation including his abilities and limitations with respect to daily life. The Panel canvassed his employment history subsequent to his injury as well as his education and general work experience. The Panel also obtained a history from Mr Cicarevic concerning his family history and situation. Details were obtained and recorded regarding his psychiatric history and his past and current medications.
The Panel referred to a physical examination, made reference to medical imaging reports and finally concluded that the physical injuries arising from the workplace accident were as set out in the first two paragraphs of the Panel’s answer to question 1 (above). In its Reasons the Panel then proceeded to record the outcome of a mental state examination leading to its conclusion as recorded in the third paragraph of its answer to question 1 (above).
Finally, the Panel considered and commented upon the opinions of a psychiatrist and an orthopaedic surgeon who had reached opinions different to those of the Panel as to, respectively, the psychiatric diagnosis and the cause of physical injuries.
Grounds:
Doing my best to distil the Plaintiff’s grounds,[14] they are:
[14]See Plaintiff’s grounds CB p 28ff, and also the transcript of the trial at pp 24–6.
(a) there was no sound or video recording of the examination before the Panel: had there been such recording it would have revealed more accurately than is portrayed in the Reasons the findings on examination (for example, the results of the neurological examination by the application of pressure to his body);
(b) the Panel’s examination was not conducted in a fair and proper manner — for example, in the Reasons there is no conclusion or mention of the fact that Mr Cicarevic was “really sick” or had been “sleeping on dirty blankets for years” or could not “carry them and wash them” or “can’t wash [himself] sometimes 10, sometimes more days than that”;
(c) the Panel wrongly took account of an x-ray of his lumbar spine dated 19 December 1999;
(d) the Panel did not mention or take into account the reports of three treating psychiatrists (Dr Keith Adey and Dr Dinesh Parekh) and a treating psychologist (Dr Haas);
(e) the Panel took into account and relied upon false evidence to the effect that payment of medical and like expenses was stopped and that Mr Cicarevic stopped using medications thereafter;
(f) the Panel did not take into account the conditions under which he attempted to return to work;
(g) the Panel made contradictory or inaccurate statements about his state of health including that he was suffering an adjustment disorder with depressed mood which was very mild in terms of severity and would not impact upon his work capacity;
(h) having noted a 2012 x-ray of the cervical spine showing mild to moderate degenerative changes at C5-6 and C6-7, the Panel did not explain what those changes meant and how his injury was connected to it; and
(i) the Panel’s decision was inconsistent with a decision of Centrelink which approved benefit payments on the basis he was physically and mentally sick.
It appears that, upon some of his grounds, Mr Cicarevic alleges that the Panel fell into error by ignoring relevant considerations,[15] or by having regard to irrelevant considerations.[16] But others are simply a challenge to the answers provided by the Panel[17] (as distinct from the process by which it arrived at those answers). Those objections are outside the scope of an application for judicial review.
[15]See grounds (a), (d), (f), and (i).
[16]See grounds (c) and (e).
[17]See grounds (b), (g) and (i).
I substantially accept and adopt the written submissions of the defendants as a complete answer to the case put forward by Mr Cicarevic. No errors are made out. Further, any allegation that the Panel’s reasons were inadequate[18] is also rejected. My reasons for these conclusions in respect of each of Mr Cicarevic’s grounds appear below.
[18]See ground (h).
(a) Inaccurate recording of findings on examination
Mr Cicarevic alleged that “there are facts, evidence, vocal and visual one which don’t [fit]/are false or … translated differently or not mentioned” in the Reasons.[19] Although he refers to there being “many examples” of this, he gives only one such example in his written grounds. It relates to his inability to “feel” pressure applied to his body by a female member of the Panel. Although it was a little unclear what point Mr Cicarevic wished to derive from this incident, he appeared to argue that the Reasons either failed to record this fact or, alternatively, the Panel reached a conclusion inconsistent with that aspect of its examination.
[19]Plaintiff’s grounds, page 1 lines 17-18.
Reference to the absence of sensation on examination appears on page 8 of the Reasons. There the Panel referred to “marked signs of abnormal illness behaviour”, including as follows:
Neurological examination of the upper and lower limbs revealed normal tone and reflexes, collapsing weakness on the assessment of power and variable non-dermatomal sensory changes bilaterally, with no clinical evidence of radiculopathy.
Contrary to Mr Cicarevic’s allegations, the Panel did record and have regard to his inability to feel pressure applied to his body during examination. I am also satisfied that similar observations and conclusions were reported by other doctors in reports submitted to the Panel.[20] In so far as Mr Cicarevic might be complaining that his reported sensory loss should have caused the Panel to form a different opinion to the one it in fact formed, that complaint amounts to a challenge to the merits of the opinion. It is not amenable to judicial review.
[20]A list of those reports is contained in the defendants’ written submissions, note 19.
Ground (a) is not made out.
(b) Failure to record information given by Mr Cicarevic
Mr Cicarevic referred to the Panel’s failure to note that he cannot carry and wash his bed clothes and has not done so for years, and that he also has difficulty washing himself.
It is true that the Reasons contain no explicit reference to these matters. Instead they refer to the information provided by Mr Cicarevic as follows:[21]
[Monash Lodge] was well supported by management, who took responsibility for most of the cleaning … The worker told the Panel that he rarely cleans his room, and says that sometimes other residents help him with this … The account the worker gave the Panel regarding his daily routine and activities, was vague and often inconsistent.
[21]Reasons, page 6.
Assuming the particular details which Mr Cicarevic said he told the Panel were material to its opinion, I am not persuaded that merely because the Panel did not expressly advert to them it did not take those details into consideration. The Panel is not bound to rehearse every single detail given.
Even so, I do not accept that information regarding laundry and self-care were matters that were material to the opinion the Panel was required to reach, and ultimately did reach. Upon the history it was given and considered material, the Panel’s ultimate conclusion was that his “current symptoms and the findings on physical examination are not consistent with any recognised condition of the cervical or thoraco-lumbar spine or the lower extremities”.[22] It is difficult to see how the matters Mr Cicarevik draws attention to had any or any significant bearing upon that question.
[22]Reasons, page 8.
Ground (b) is not made out.
(c) The 1999 x-ray
Mr Cicarevic complained that the Panel had regard to an x-ray of his lumbar spine dated 17 December 1999 (1999 x-ray). The Panel did not have access to any medical imaging but noted the report of the findings of the 1999 x-ray.[23] Otherwise, the Panel referred to more recent imaging.[24] The Panel concluded that the work injury caused a (now resolved) aggravation of Mr Cicarevic’s pre-existing bilateral L5 pars defect and L4-5 spondylolisthesis.
[23]Reasons, page 4 “The Panel noted from the referral material the worker’s history of an injury to the back in December 1999, with plain x-rays demonstrating a spondylolysis at L5.”
[24]Reasons, page 8.
Contrary to Mr Cicarevic’s allegation that the 1999 x-ray was not referred to in any medical report, it was referred to in the reports of his general practitioner, Dr Zoltan Vilagosh, dated 10 June 2003 and 20 August 2006.[25] Dr Vilagosh also noted that the x-ray showed “spondylolysis at L5 and early spondylosis at L5-S1”.
[25]See page 1 of each report: Exhibit AAP-3 to the Paul Affidavit.
Mr Circarevic appeared to imply some doubt about the authenticity of the x ray by saying that his recorded birthdate was incorrect. If that was the intended implication, I am not satisfied that it was not a report relating to him. Mr Cicarevic did not deny he suffered an injury consistent with the x-ray findings or that, on that basis, the Panel had regard to an irrelevant consideration. To the contrary, Mr Cicarevic referred to this injury in histories he gave to various (though not all) medical experts.[26]
[26]See the medical reports listed in the defendant’s written submissions at note 23.
I reject the submission, if it was intended, that the Panel wrongly took into account the 1999 x-ray.
Ground (c) is not made out.
(d) Failure to refer to additional psychiatric/psychological reports
Mr Cicarevic complained that the Panel failed to refer to the reports of three psychiatrists. At trial, Mr Cicarevik confirmed that they were psychiatrists, Dr Keith Adey and Dr Dinesh Parekh, and a psychologist, Dr Irene Haas, each of whom provided treatment to Mr Cicarevic.
No party produced any report prepared by Dr Parekh, and it is unclear whether any such report exists. But, at trial, the defendants produced reports of Dr Adey[27] and Dr Haas,[28] each of which pre-dated the period of Mr Cicarevic’s relevant statutory benefits claim (27 March 2008 onwards).
[27]Report dated 8 July 2003: see Paul Affidavit at [9] and Exhibit AAP-5.
[28]Reports dated 25 October 2005 and 6 February 2007: see Paul Affidavit at [10] and Exhibit AAP-7.
The evidence established that the Adey and Haas reports were in the possession of Mr Cicarevic’s former solicitors before they requested the referral of questions to a medical panel. Despite this, his solicitors did not include these reports in the “Index of Documents” to be provided to the Panel or seek to have them included in documents subsequently provided to the Panel. For that reason the reports were not among the documents that were put before the Panel.
The Panel’s statutory function was to form its own opinion, not to adjudicate between the opinions of treating and medico-legal practitioners.[29] Bearing that in mind, there is nothing in the evidence to persuade me that the Panel ought nonetheless have sought copies of the reports or that it was in error in not having regard to what was contained in them.
[29]Wingfoot Australian Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480, 498 [47].
Ground (d) is not made out.
(e) Inaccurate recording of medication taken by Mr Cicarevic
The Panel stated in the Reasons that “the WorkSafe Agent terminated the worker’s entitlement to weekly payments and medical and like expenses by way of notice dated 4 September 2003”.[30] In fact, QBE continues to pay for Mr Cicarevic’s attendances on, and medication prescribed by, his general practitioner.[31]
[30]Reasons, page 4.
[31]See Paul Affidavit at [13] to [14] and Exhibit AAP-8.
Even if the Panel misapprehended some entitlement to the payment of expenses, this could not have been material to the opinion it formed in respect of the questions referred to it. What was relevant was not how medication was paid for, but what if any medication was taken. The mere occurrence of error is not sufficient.[32] To be a material error of law, the error must affect the decision itself.[33]
[32]Cf, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 384 (Toohey and Gaudron JJ) in relation to error of law under the ADJR Act.
[33]Samad v District Court (NSW) (2002) 209 CLR 140,155-6 [44] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J); R v Hull University Visitor; Ex parte Page [1993] AC 682, 702 (Lord Browne-Wilkinson); R v Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Levin [1997] AC 741, 748-9 (Lord Hoffmann). See also, R v The District Court; Ex parte White (1966) 116 CLR 644, 648-9 and 650 (Barwick CJ).
I agree with the defendant’s submission that it is clear that the Panel did take account of Mr Cicarevic’s claims as to his ongoing use of medication, as appears from the following passages in the Reasons:
(a) “[h]e said that between 2002 and 2008, he … was treated with pain killers”;[34]
(b) “[c]urrent medications include: Aropax, Diazepam, Largactil, Panadeine Forte. He said he had not taken MS-Contin for a month and a half”;[35] and
(c) “[i]n addition to a substantial amount of medication taken for pain, the worker told the Panel that he takes the following medication prescribed by his general practitioner, in doses which change from one day to another, according to what the worker believes he needs: Aropax 40 mg daily, Valium 5 mg up to 4 tablets per day, Largactil 25 mg up to 4 tablets per day”.[36]
[34]Reasons, page 4.
[35]Reasons, page 5.
[36]Reasons, page 7 to 8.
Although stating that it “considered that the worker’s history of continual use of narcotic analgesics throughout this period was inconsistent and unreliable”,[37] the Panel clearly had regard to the information provided by Mr Cicarevic concerning his use of medication.
[37]Reasons, page 8.
Ground (e) is not made out.
(f) Failing to take into account the conditions under which he returned to work
At several places in its Reasons the Panel referred to Mr Cicarevic’s work history between 2008 and 2010, as set out in the agreed facts supplied by both parties to the Panel. In conclusion, the Panel stated:
The Panel also took account of the worker’s subsequent return to work, some of which was physically demanding, or involved prolonged sitting, from 2008 until at least 2010.[38]
[38]Reasons, page 8.
Immediately after that statement, the Panel continued with the comment quoted in paragraph 44 above. Mr Cicarevic’s complaint under this ground was that the Panel had not taken account of the conditions in which he returned to work, namely that he had been ‘drinking 10 – 20 tablets a day non-stop’ (which I take to mean that he had been swallowing tablets, perhaps with water). I have no doubt that the Panel’s view that Mr Cicarevic’s account of his use of narcotic analgesic medication ‘throughout this period’ was inconsistent and unreliable demonstrates that it did have regard to his account of taking medication to permit him to undertake his work. The fact that the Panel may not have entirely accepted Mr Cicarevic’s account is not something of which he can complain in this forum.
Ground (f) is not made out.
(g) Making inaccurate or inconsistent findings about his health
Little needs to be said about this ground. It was mere assertion. In substance, Mr Cicarevick appeared to take issue with the Panel’s conclusion that his injury to his spine was not as substantial or severe as he considers it to be. Self-evidently this complaint is a challenge on the merits to the Panel’s opinion and is not open to be advanced.
Ground (g) fails.
(h) Failure to explain the relevance of the 2012 cervical spine x-ray
The Panel referred to medical imaging including “an x-ray of the cervical spine dated 11 January 2012, which was reported to show mild to moderate degenerative changes at C5-6 and C6-7”.[39]
[39]Reasons, page 8.
Mr Cicarevic appears to complain that the Panel failed to explain what these changes meant and how they related to his injury.[40] But, when read in context, this x-ray evidently informed the Panel’s conclusion that “the worker’s current symptoms and the findings on physical examination are not consistent with any recognised physical medical condition of the cervical or thoraco-lumbar spine or the lower extremities”.[41] Put another way, the 2012 x-ray was among the matters that caused the Panel to form the opinion that Mr Cicarevic did not have a neck injury attributable to his work injury.[42]
[40]Plaintiff’s grounds, page 2 lines 58- 60.
[41]Reasons, page 8:
[42]See also the Panel’s answer to Question 1: Certificate of Opinion, page 1.
Ground (h) is not made out.
(i) Making a decision inconsistent with the decision of Centrelink
Again, little needs to be said about this ground. Mr Cicarevic wished to point out that Centrelink had assessed his health and had found him to be sufficiently unwell to justify a benefit being paid.
If this was a complaint that the Panel failed to take into account a relevant consideration, it fails. It is not a relevant consideration.
If it was a complaint that the Panel’s decision must have been wrong because it was inconsistent with the decision of other doctors, it also fails. The Panel was charged with its specific statutory duty to form its opinion based on its examination, the medical history it obtained, and in answer to the specific questions it was required to answer. A conclusion reached by some other doctors for a different purpose, on different criteria, is not only irrelevant but the existence of a different medical opinion (if there was one) does not connote legal error by the Panel in the performance of its task.
Ground (i) is not made out.
Conclusion:
In summary, Mr Cicarevic has not identified any legal error by the Panel in discharging its opinion-forming function. Nor has he identified any other ground on which the Court might make orders for certiorari or mandamus. The application for judicial review will be dismissed.
I will hear the parties on the question of the appropriate final orders to make.
0
10
0