A practical example of how differing expert medical evidence may be preferred. Doctors Fitzpatrick and Goode were not preferred in relation to their views about the plaintiff’s abnormal injury behaviour or dishonesty. Dr Wallace’s view to the contrary was preferred and this was assisted by the corroborating lay evidence, in particular by work colleagues and the credibility of the plaintiff overall. However, as to the impact of the consequences, Judge Samios preferred Doctors Fitzpatrick and Goode on the basis of the symptoms described by the plaintiff.
Interestingly, His Honour whilst not allowing past gratuitous care under s.59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003, because it did not meet the threshold; allowed future gratuitous care.
As to lost income, two years were allowed.
David Cormack – Brisbane Barrister & Mediator