Thuong v Liu & Anor [2017] QDC 196

Two medical experts for the injured person found impairment, ongoing pain and impact on ability to work.

The medical expert for the insurer found no impairment, little to explain ongoing pain and no impact on the injured person’s ability to work.

The defendant medical expert used an inclinometer, as favoured by AMA guides, and had the person do a warm up, also as preferred by the guides.

The insurer submitted the medical expert who most closely followed the AMA guides should be preferred.

His Honour Searles DCJ however, found the injured person was credible, his impact at work supported by a supervisor and the evidence of the medical experts who did not most closely follow the guides was preferable as they were able to explain the discrepancy.

An award of $100,000 was made for future economic loss.


A bit groundhog day with my comment, as once again, the credible plaintiff, supported by a co-worker, has seen their medical evidence on impairment preferred and a substantial future lost earning capacity award made.

Our client’s credit in a personal injury claim is the key to a great result.

Peter Matus | Special Counsel, Compensation Claims