Jump to content


Photo

The Medical Assessment of Dr Chew


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 BLURB

BLURB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • RegionCambridge

Posted 06 May 2015 - 10:17 AM

The Medical Assessment of Dr Chew
 
[106] The appellant has raised an issue concerning the reports of Dr Chew dated 2 April 2002 and 22 April 2002. As outlined in the background, Dr Chew completed the medical assessment in respect of the appellant on 2 April 2002. As a result of the report, Dr Percival, the Branch Medical Advisor, rang to discuss the report. Dr Chew outlined a number of medical recommendations, which he outlined in his later report of 22 April 2002 which included of a psychiatric report. These interventions had not been discussed with the appellant. It is a requirement of the Act and natural justice that the report in full is discussed. Dr Chew was asked to meet with the appellant and discuss his report. Dr Chew refused, on that basis the respondent could not use the report in its decision making and as a consequence sought a further report from Dr Sprott.
[107] The appellant and his lawyer were made fully aware of the circumstances and that the reports of Dr Chew would not be used in any decision making. The appellant was advised, as was his lawyer, that a further report from Dr Sprott would be sought.
[108] The report of Dr Chew was not forwarded to Dr Sprott as it had not been discussed fully with the appellant.
[109] The Reviewer accepted that there had not been a procedural flaw in the assessment process by the request of the further report. Indeed he found that had the report of Dr Chew been relied upon the decision of the respondent would have been quashed.
[110] Dr Sprott and Dr Chew in any event identified the same jobs except for one.
[111] A breach of natural justice may be able to be cured, particularly if there has been a reconsideration of the matter afresh (Ridge v Baldwin <a href="http://www.bailii.or...HL/1963/2.html"title="View Case" class="autolink_findcases_inserted">[1963] UKHL 2; [1964] AC 40 at p.79 per Lord Reid and Calvin v Carr [1979] UKPC 1; [1980] AC 574). The subsequent fresh medical examination by Dr Sprott cures any earlier breach of natural justice incurred by Dr Chew.
 
 
 
Decision
 
[119] I should first deal with the submission that the medical report of Dr Chew and the intervention Dr Percival infringed the principles of natural justice, and hence the later medical assessment of Dr Sprott should not be used.
[120] In my opinion, on the facts of this case, it was open for the respondent to obtain a further independent medical opinion once it became apparent the use of Dr Chew’s opinion was unfair. Indeed, if the respondent had not taken that course, as the review officer said, the assessment capacity procedure would have been voidable on the basis of infringing the principles of natural justice. However, as discussed, it is competent for that defence to be cured by re-assessment by an another independent medical assessor. If that was not the case, then the respondent would be indefinitely in the future prevented from invoking the work capacity procedure.
[121] In my view, on the facts of this case, there is no substance in this particular point for the reasons that I have given.
 
 
 
DATED at WELLINGTON this 20th day of September 2004
 
(J. Cadenhead)
District Court Judge

 


  • 0

I have many issues with the way AON, Catalyst and ACC managed my 1992 lower back injury claim between 2000 and 2002.

Not only did Leanne MacDonnell & Dr Robert Percival interfere with the assessment process, they wrote lies about me in my files.


#2 BLURB

BLURB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts
  • RegionCambridge

Posted 06 May 2015 - 10:50 AM

[109] The Reviewer accepted that there had not been a procedural flaw in the assessment process by the request of the further report. Indeed he found that had the report of Dr Chew been relied upon the decision of the respondent would have been quashed.

 

 

The report of Dr Tony Chew was used.

 

The report was forwarded to Dr Tim Sprott by Leanne MacDonnell.

 

The report was used by Sandra Mechen within her ACC submissions to the DRSL (now Fairways) Reviewer, Mike Dunne.

 

The report was used (and discussed) by Mike Dunne and Sandra Mechen at the Review Hearing.

 

Parts of the report were used to form part of his Mike Dunnes Review Decision.

 

The report was used by Sandra Mechen within her ACC submissions to the ACC Appeals (District Court)

 

The report was used (and discussed) by J. Cadenhead (District Court Judge) and Sandra Mechen at the Appeal Hearing.

 

 

The report of Dr Chew had clearly been relied upon during the whole process.

 

The original decision of the respondent SHOULD have been quashed.

 

Three totally different reasons/explanations were given as to why Dr Chew's report was nulled and voided.


  • 0

I have many issues with the way AON, Catalyst and ACC managed my 1992 lower back injury claim between 2000 and 2002.

Not only did Leanne MacDonnell & Dr Robert Percival interfere with the assessment process, they wrote lies about me in my files.