Queensland Consolidated Regulations Queensland Consolidated RegulationsThe objectives of schedule 9 include promoting—
(a) consistency between assessments of general damages awarded by courts for similar injuries; and
(b) similar assessments of general damages awarded by courts for different types of injury that have a similar level of adverse impact on an injured worker.
Notes—• Under section 306O (1) of the Act , if general damages are to be awarded by a court in relation to an injury sustained on or after 1 July 2010, the court must assess an injury scale value as follows—• the injured worker’s total general damages must be assigned a numerical value (
"injury scale value" ) on a scale running from 0 to 100—the Act , section 306O (1) (a) ;• the scale reflects 100 equal graduations of general damages, from a case in which an injury is not severe enough to justify any award of general damages to a case in which an injury is of the gravest conceivable kind—the Act , section 306O (1) (b) ;• in assessing the injury scale value, the court must—• assess the injury scale value under any rules provided under a regulation; and• have regard to the injury scale values given to similar injuries in previous proceedings—the Act , section 306O (1) (c) .• Under section 306O (2) of the Act , if a court assesses an injury scale value for a particular injury to be more or less than any injury scale value prescribed for or attributed to similar particular injuries under section 306O (1) (c) of the Act , the court must state the factors on which the assessment is based that justify the assessed injury scale value.
(1) In assessing the injury scale value (
"ISV" ) for an injury mentioned in the injury column of schedule 9 , a court must consider the range of injury scale values stated in schedule 9 for the injury.
(2) The range of ISVs for the injury reflects the level of adverse impact of the injury on the injured worker.
(1) Subject to section 9 , in assessing the ISV for multiple injuries, a court must consider the range of ISVs for the dominant injury of the multiple injuries.
(2) To reflect the level of adverse impact of multiple injuries on an injured worker, the court may assess the ISV for the multiple injuries as being higher in the range of ISVs for the dominant injury of the multiple injuries than the ISV the court would assess for the dominant injury only.Note—This section acknowledges that—• the effects of multiple injuries commonly overlap, with each injury contributing to the overall level of adverse impact on the injured worker; and• if each of the multiple injuries were assigned an individual ISV and these ISVs were added together, the total ISV would generally be too high.
(1) This section applies if a court considers the level of adverse impact of multiple injuries on an injured worker is so severe that the maximum dominant ISV is inadequate to reflect the level of impact.
(2) To reflect the level of impact, the court may make an assessment of the ISV for the multiple injuries that is higher than the maximum dominant ISV.
(3) However, the ISV for the multiple injuries—(a) must not be more than 100; andNote—Under section 306O (1) (a) of the Act , an ISV is assessed on a scale running from 0 to 100.(b) should rarely be more than 25% higher than the maximum dominant ISV.
(4) If the increase is more than 25% of the maximum dominant ISV, the court must give detailed written reasons for the increase.
(5) In this section—
"maximum dominant ISV" , in relation to multiple injuries, means the maximum ISV in the range for the dominant injury of the multiple injuries.
(1) This section applies if a court is assessing an ISV where an injured worker has an adverse psychological reaction to a physical injury.
(2) The court must treat the adverse psychological reaction merely as a feature of the injury.
(1) This section applies if—(a) a court is assessing an ISV; and(b) a PIRS rating for a mental disorder of an injured worker is relevant under schedule 9 .
(2) The PIRS rating for the mental disorder of the injured worker is the PIRS rating accepted by the court.
(3) A PIRS rating is capable of being accepted by the court only if it is—(a) assessed by a medical expert as required under schedules 10 and 11 ; and(b) provided to the court in a PIRS report as required under schedule 10 , section 12 .
(1) This section applies if an injured worker has a pre-existing condition that is aggravated by an injury for which a court is assessing an ISV.
(2) In considering the impact of the aggravation of the pre-existing condition, the court may have regard only to the extent to which the pre-existing condition has been made worse by the injury.
(1) In addition to providing ranges of ISVs for particular injuries, schedule 9 sets out provisions relevant to using schedule 9 to assess an ISV for particular injuries.Examples of relevant provisions—• examples of the injury• examples of factors affecting ISV assessment• comments about appropriate level of ISV
(2) In assessing an ISV, a court must have regard to those provisions to the extent they are relevant in a particular case.
(3) The fact that schedule 9 provides examples of factors affecting an ISV assessment is not intended to discourage a court from having regard to other factors it considers are relevant in a particular case.
In assessing an ISV, a court may have regard to other matters to the extent they are relevant in a particular case.
Examples of other matters—• the injured worker’s age, degree of insight, life expectancy, pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life• the effects of a pre-existing condition of the injured worker• difficulties in life likely to have emerged for the injured worker whether or not the injury happened• in assessing an ISV for multiple injuries, the range for, and other provisions of schedule 9 in relation to, an injury other than the dominant injury of the multiple injuries
The extent of DPI is an important consideration, but not the only consideration affecting the assessment of an ISV.
If a medical report states a DPI, it must state how the DPI is decided, including—
(a) the clinical findings; and
(b) how the impairment is calculated; and
(c) if the DPI is based on criteria provided under AMA 5—(i) the provisions of AMA 5 setting out the criteria; and(ii) if a range of percentages is available under AMA 5 for an injury of the type being assessed—the reason for assessing the injury at the selected point in the range.
Notes—1 It is not a function of a doctor to identify—(a) the item in schedule 9 to which an injury belongs; or(b) the appropriate ISV for an injury.2 A medical report tendered in evidence in a proceeding for a claim for personal injury damages must comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 , chapter 11 , part 5 .
(1) This section does not apply to a medical assessment of scarring or of a mental disorder.
(2) In assessing an ISV, a court must give greater weight to a medical assessment of a DPI based on the criteria for the assessment of a DPI provided under AMA 5 than to a medical assessment of a DPI not based on the criteria.
In assessing an ISV, a court must give greater weight to a PIRS report provided as required under schedule 10 than to another medical assessment of the permanent impairment caused by a mental disorder.
An ISV assessed by a court must be a whole number.
Note—Under section 306O (1) (a) of the Act , an ISV is assessed on a scale running from 0 to 100.