Rosata v City of Melbourne & Anor (Ruling) [2023] VCC 630 (on AUSTLII)
With thanks to Scott Shelly for drawing attention to this recent ruling.
In the unusual circumstances of this proceeding, there were two independent and conflicting Medical Panel determinations of the same medical question of whether Mr Rosata’s impairment satisfied the threshold level of significant injury.
Upon the initial referral of the medical question by the City of Melbourne, the Medical Panel determined in November 2021 that Mr Rosati’s degree of impairment satisfied the threshold level. It was not in dispute that City of Melbourne is bound by this determination, and that Mr Rosata may recover damages for non-economic loss against it. Following its subsequent joinder to the proceeding in May 2022 as the second defendant, Citywide referred the same medical question, and in November 2022, a separately convened Medical Panel determined that Mr Rosata’s impairment did not satisfy the threshold level of significant injury.
The court held that the first Medical Panel determination (that the plaintiff’s impairment resulting from his injury satisfies the threshold level of significant injury) is required to be accepted by the Court pursuant to section 28LZH of the Wrongs Act 1958 in relation to Mr Rosata’s claim against the second defendant, Citywide.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2124]