DCI 8 - MCRS Policy For Determination Of Claims For Permanent Impairment Arising From Injuries Occuring Before 1 December 1988 - Console

DEFENCE COMPENSATION INSTRUCTION - NO. 8

Military Compensation Scheme - Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

Subject

MCRS Policy For Determination Of Claims For Permanent Impairment Arising From Injuries Occuring Before 1 December 1988

MCRS PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING CLAIMS FOR PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT;

1.The purposes of this Instruction are:

a.to explain the implications of the “Schlenert” and “Miles” decisions on future management of claims for permanent impairment lump sum compensation;

b.to provide Military Compensaton & Rehabilitation Section (MCRS) staff with instructions on determination of permanent impairment claims where the injury occurred before 1 December 1988; and

c.to provide staff with procedures for assessing claims for permanent impairment.

Background

2.The arrangements for assessing and determining entitlements to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment under the SRC Act have been in existence for almost 7 years. From an ADF perspective, during financial year 94/95 compensation benefits paid for permanent impairment under sections 24 and 27 accounted for approximately 28% of total benefits granted, viz;

FY94/95:	Total:	$51.693M
	S24:	$10.889M (21%)
	S27:	$  3.773M (7%)

3.Over the years, permanent impairment claims have been the subject of numerous judicial and tribunal decisions. More recent decisions in “Schlenert” and “Miles” have resulted in a requirement to change our approach when dealing with claims for permanent impairment where the injury occurred prior to 1 December 1988.

Structure of DCI

4.This DCI is in 9 parts under the following major headings:

	Part A:	Summary of Relevant Case Law (Schlenert, Miles);
	Part B:	Procedures for Assessing and Calculating Permanent Impairment Entitlements;
	Part C:	Entitlements To Non-Economic Loss Under Section 27
	Part D	Resolving Outstanding Cases;
	Part E:	“Core Procedures” for Investigating Claims for Permanent Impairment;
	Part F:	Acceptable Variations to Core Assessment Procedures;
	Part G:	Permanent Impairment Contact Officers (Regional and MCRS);
	Part H:	“Claim for Permanent Impairment” form; and
	Part I:	Flow Diagram - “Transitional Claims for Permanent Impairment (Angelica, Schlenert, Miles)”

Action

5.All MCRS staff are required to familiarise themselves with and adhere to the policy contained in this Instruction. NOTE: Part B is of particular importance as it outlines the major changes to the way permanent impairment entitlements are to be calculated for injuries which occurred before 1 December 1988.

6.Staff must fully understand the significantly different approach to determining transitional permanent impairment claims, which takes effect immediately.

7.The contact officers for any enquiries regarding this Instruction are Paul Reis on (06) 2668637 or Paul Ontong on (06) 2668628.

CLAUDE NEUMANN
ASPP

September 1995

Part A - Summary Of Relevant Case Law

Schlenert V Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation

(19 AAR 305)

1.Mr Schlenert (employed by AOTC) suffered an injury to his right arm and elbow on 7 April 1986 in the course of his employment. On 19 November 1990 Mr Schlenert submitted a claim for lump sum compensation in respect of permanent impairment of his right upper limb. Liability was accepted and a determination made awarding him $7677.44 for 16% loss of efficient use of the right arm at or above the elbow. As the injury occurred during the currency of the 1971 Compensation Act, the amount was determined in accordance with section 39 of the 1971 Act, ie. as it applied at the time the loss was considered to have become permanent and static.

2.Liability in respect of a section 27 (1988 Act) payment for non-economic loss was declined on the basis that as the injury occurred prior to 1 December 1988, the claim should be assessed under the 1971 Act and there was no provision for such a payment under the 1971 Act.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision

3.The AAT affirmed the determination under review noting that section 124 of the 1988 Act denied the availability of benefits under the 1988 Act where persons injured prior to the commencement of the 1988 Act would not have been entitled to compensation under the 1971 Act of that type. The matter proceeded to review by the Federal Court.

Full Federal Court - Lockhart, Sheppard, Einfield JJ

4.By a majority of 2:1 the Full Bench of the Federal Court decided that:

•    Mr Schlenert had established within the opening words of section 27, his injury did result in a permanent impairment and that compensation for that impairment was payable under section 24
•    Compensation was payable under section 24 because of the operation of subsection 124(1) and the fact that the injury occurred prior to the commencement of the 1988 Act was not a relevant consideration.
•    To deny a payment under section 27 would conflict with the retrospective words and principle of subsection 124(1) and with the two preconditions for the operation of section 27 itself, ie: permanent impairment and entitlement to compensation under section 24, both which existed in respect of Mr Schlenert. Accordingly, as Mr Schlenert had satisfied both criteria set down by the Act, he was entitled to additional compensation under section 27 of the Act for non-economic loss.

Comcare v Rhonda Miles - No  NG 579 of 1994

1.On 17 February 1992 Rhonda Miles claimed lump sum compensation for permanent impairment as a result of tenosynovitis suffered in September 1983. Following investigation of the claim it was determined that liability had ceased.

2.The AAT was asked to review the decision to cease liability in respect of incapacity for work and liability as a whole.

Tribunal Decision

3.The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and in substitute made a decision that:

*Ms Miles was entitled to incapacity payments for various specified periods.

*Ms Miles had suffered a permanent impairment which was compensable prior to 1 December 1988.

*Ms Miles had suffered a permanent impairment of 10% within the terms of the 1988 Act and remitted the matter back to Comcare to determine the lump sum payable pursuant to section 39 of the 1971 Act.

*Miles applied for review by the AAT which found in August 1994 that she was entitled to continuing compensation, that she had suffered a permanent impairment prior to 1 December 1988, and that the degree of permanent impairment was 10%. Comcare appealed to the Federal Court.

Federal Court Decision - Hill J

4.In his judgement, Justice Hill found, as in Schlenert, that section 27 NEL payments are available to claimants whose entitlements under section 24 of the 1988 Act derive from assessments made having regard to section 39 of the 1971 Act.

Justice Hill also found that because of sub-section 24 (7) of the 1988 Act, it is necessary that there be a whole person impairment of at least 10% before any lump-sum compensation is payable. This applies not only in those cases where the permanent impairment occurs after 1 December 1988, but also in cases where the lump-sum is calculated in accordance with section 39 of the 1971 Act.

The Federal Court found:

“The proper interpretation of section 24, in a case to which the transitional provisions of section 124 of the 1988 Act apply, is that while the compensation will be determined in accordance with the 1971 Act (and in a case as the present - section 39) the benefit which is deemed to be payable under section 24 of the 1988 Act will nevertheless not be payable if the degree of permanent impairment is less than ten percent. That seems to follow from the clear words of section 24(7).

The legislative policy of the 1988 Act is to restrict compensation to cases of some seriousness with ten percent incapacity as the threshold, not only with respect to claims subject to the transitional provisions of section 124. In my view the ten percent threshold thus applies whether the ultimate amount of compensation is determined in accordance with the method of calculation actually set out in section 24 or whether, in a transitional case, it is to be determined under section 39 (of the 1971 Act). Both methods are treated as determinations under section 24 of the 1988 Act.”

Part B - New Procedure For Assessing And Calculating Permanent Impairment And Non-Economic Loss Entitlements

(Injury Pre 1.12.88)

NOTE: Part B is particularly important because it sets out new procedures which encapsulate the principles of the “Schlenert” and “Miles” decisions. The procedures represent a significant change to the way in which MCRS has in the past dealt with lump sum claims under section 39 of the 1971 Act. As with any major change, there will undoubtably be a “settling-in” period during which claims management staff should take particular care when implementing the new procedures, especially those relating to the calculation of entitlements using both the rates for impairment under the 1971 Act and the system of assessing non-economic loss under the SRC Act.

1.Although the decisions in “Schlenert” and “Miles” were mainly concerned with section 39 of the 1971 Act, the principles which emerged are equally applicable to claims for permanent impairment under section 40 (loss of capacity to engage in sexual intercourse), section 41 (facial disfigurement) and section 42 (loss of sense of taste and smell) of the 1971 Act.

2.In all cases where lump sum compensation is claimed for impairment(s) related to an injury sustained before 1 December 1988, arrangements should be made for the claimant to be examined by the treating specialist or by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. In addition to other information required, the examining doctor should be asked to provide the following information:

(For Injuries Pre 1 December 1988)

a.whether the impairment is likely to continue indefinitely;

b.the permanent percentage loss of efficient use of the limb or faculty (as specified in sub-section 39(4), or sections 40, 41 or 42 of the 1971 Act),

c.the date the loss became permanent, and

d.the percentage of whole person impairment (WPI) resulting from that loss in accordance with the relevant Table(s) from the Permanent Impairment Guide.

Possible Outcome(s)

3.Depending on the information provided by the doctor, the following questions need to be considered by the delegate:

a.Is the impairment likely to continue indefinitely?

If yes, the impairment is permanent.

If no, there is no entitlement to compensation under sections 24 or 27.

b.Did the impairment occur or arise prior to 1 December 1988?

If yes, the case is governed by the 1971 Act (in most cases).

c.On what date did the impairment become permanent?

This date will govern the statutory rates applicable under the 1971 Act.

d.Is the percentage WPI less than 10%?

If yes, the claim for lump sum compensation should be rejected in accordance with subsection 24(7) irrespective of the percentage loss of efficient use assessed. This is subject to the exceptions in sub-section 24(8) relating to impairments associated with injuries to fingers and toes, and the loss of the sense of taste or smell.

e.Is the percentage WPI equal to or greater than 10%?

If yes, an entitlement to compensation under sections 24 and 27 arises. The amount payable for impairment under section 24 is based on section 39 of the 1971 Act (or sections 40, 41 and 42 if appropriate) - see examples on next page.

(Injury Pre 1.12.88 Where Impairment Increases After 30.11.88)

4.Where an employee, (A) has received compensation for permanent impairment prior to 1.12.88 under the 1930 or 1971 Act, or (B) where there was no entitlement to lump sum compensation under the relevant Act, ie. as in compensable back injury cases, access to compensation under sections 24 and 27 arises as follows:

(A)Where Compensation Already Paid

a.Has the permanent impairment increased by 10% or more of the whole person?

If yes, compensation is payable for the increase in impairment under section 24 (section 39 of the 1971 Act does not apply to the increased impairment).

If no, compensation is not payable and the claim for the increase in impairment should be rejected.

(B)No Lump Sum Entitlement Under 1930 or 1971 Act

a.Has the permanent impairment increased by 10% or more of the whole person?

If yes, compensation is payable under sections 24 and 27 if the increase  resulted from a new “event” after 1.12.88, ie. medical or surgical treatment.

If no, compensation is not payable and the claim for the increase in impairment should be rejected.

Note: Compensation is not payable if the increase in  impairment is due solely to the natural degenerative process of the original impairment for which lump sum compensation was not payable under the 1930 or 1971 Act.

Example 1

A medical practitioner has assessed the claimant to have suffered a 20% loss of efficient use of the leg at or above the knee and 10% Whole Person Impairment under table 9.2 of the Permanent Impairment Guide.

Section 24 (Having regard to section 39 of 1971 Act)

20% of $44,985.00  (13.6.88 rates)

= $8,997.00

Section 27

Part A

10% of $19,795.59  (1.7.95 rates)

= $1,979.56

Part B

	NEL Score 5.6
	5.6/15 x $19795.59	= $7,390.35
Total		$18,366.91

Example 2

A person suffers an injury to the right knee in June 1988. Dr has assessed the injury at a 15% loss of efficient use (the doctor confirms that the impairment equates to 10% Whole Person Impairment). As a consequence of the knee injury he has suffered a back condition which became apparent in August 1989.  Now assessed at 10% Whole Person Impairment.

Section 24 and 124(4) of 1988 Act

	15% loeu right leg at or above the knee pay
	15% of $44,985.00	= $6747.75
	10% WPI for impairment to back
	10% of $105,576.47	= $10,557.65

Section 27

Part A - 10% for knee and 10% for back using the combined values tables is equal to 19%.

ie. 19% of  $19.795.59

= $3761.05

Part B - NEL questionnaire  =  Score of 6

ie 6/15 x $19,795.59

= $7918.24

Total

	Section 24	= $17,305.40 ($6,747.75  +  $10,557.65)
	S27 (A)	= $3,761.05
	S27 (B)	= $7,918.24
	Total	= $28,984.69

Note 1: NEL in this case is based on a combined impairment of 19% WPI. Where multiple impairments are caused by separate injuries/incidents, each impairment and NEL assessment is to be treated separately.

Note 2: While NEL is combined in the above example, compensation for impairment to the knee is governed by section 39 of the 1971 Act (ie. 15% LOEU) and must not be combined with the 10% WPI arising from the back injury.

Example 3

A person suffers a knee injury in April 1987. Following medical treatment, he is able to resume normal activities, although the injury does not completely resolve.

In 1990, the person experiences increased problems with the knee which are all related to the compensable injury in April 1987.

The person submits a claim for permanent impairment and is now assessed as having a 10% whole person impairment.

The evidence verifies that there was a minimal or nil % impairment before 1.12.88 and the current impairment represents an increase in impairment of 10% whole person.

Entitlement:

Assess NEL and pay for 10% WPI under section 24 & 27 (or s25 if appropriate), as normal.

Note: For compensation to be granted in cases similar to the one above, there must be a minimum increase of 10% whole person impairment. It will therefore be necessary to consider the degree of impairment present immediately before 1.12.88.

Example 4

A person suffers a back injury in February 1985 resulting in a herniated disc. He is not entitled to lump sum compensation for impairment arising from the back injury under section 39 of the 1971 Act and his claim for lump sum compensation is rejected.

The person receives medical treatment and is able to continue working. Although the injury does not resolve, the person's back condition was asymptomatic.

In June 1994 the person experiences further problems with the compensable back injury and undergoes a spinal fusion to rectify the herniated disc. A doctor advises that the impairment is permanent and assesses its degree to be 10% of the whole person.

The evidence also verifies that there was a minimal or nil % impairment before 1.12.88.

Entitlement:

Assess NEL and pay for 10% WPI under section 24 & 27 (or s25 if appropriate), as normal.

Note: For compensation to be granted in cases similar to the one above, there must be a minimum increase of 10% whole person impairment due to a “new” event after 1.12.88, ie. medical or surgical treatment. As such, it will be necessary to consider the degree of impairment present prior to the surgical/medical treatment.

Part C - Entitlements To Non-Economic Loss (NEL) Under Section 27

1.Section 27 of the SRC Act provides that where an injury to an employee results in a permanent impairment for which compensation is payable in accordance with section 24, additional compensation is payable in respect of the NEL suffered by the employee as a result of the injury or impairment.

2.Assessment of non-economic loss entitlements is based on both the percentage whole person impairment assessed and the “effects on lifestyle” score obtained from the non-economic loss questionnaire.

Multiple Impairments

3.It is a common occurrence for members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to submit multiple claims for compensation, usually close to or at the time of discharge from the ADF. Where a member has multiple compensable conditions, assessment of any entitlement to lump sum compensation for permanent impairment will involve consideration of the effect each impairment has on the member's lifestyle having regard to pain, suffering, loss of mobility, etc. The following explains the manner in which NEL entitlements are to be treated in multiple impairments cases:

Impairments Due To Same Injury/Incident

4.Where an individual suffers multiple permanent impairments as a consequence of one injury or incident, ie. car accident causing impairments to the knee and lower back, the Combined Value Charts (Table 14 of the PI Guide) must be used. A 10% impairment rating of the knee and of the back will generate a combined impairment of 19% of the whole person and attract compensation of an amount equal to 19% of the maximum payable under section 24. In addition, the individual would be entitled to an amount equal to 19% of Part A under section 27. The proportion of Part B under section 27 to which the individual is entitled would depend on the score obtained from the NEL questionnaire.

	EG.	Knee  =  10% WPI, Back  =  10% WPI
		Combined Impairment	=  19%
		S24 Entitlement:	19% of $105,576.47 (1.7.95 rates)
			= $20,059.53
		S27 Entitlement:	19% of $19,795.59 (Part A)
			= $3,761.16
		(% of Part B obtained from NEL Score)

Impairments Due To Separate Injuries/Incidents

5.Where an individual suffers multiple permanent impairments as a consequence of several injuries or incidents, ie. car accident causing an impairment to the back, and football injury causing an impairment to right knee, each permanent impairment generates a separate entitlement to compensation under sections 24 and 27.

6.The Combined Value Charts must not be used to combine impairments caused by separate injuries/incidents. In addition, the entire NEL assessment under section 27 must be treated separately for each impairment.

Separate NELs

7.NEL is intended to compensate individuals for the effect of each permanent impairment on their “lifestyle”. Section 27 does not generally envisage “off-setting” or “discounting” NEL scores for one impairment against another. Where one injury/incident causes multiple impairments, the overall effect of the impairments on the persons lifestyle should be assess against each category in the NEL questionnaire to arrive at an appropriate score.

NEL Scores

8.Assessment of the appropriate score in each category, ie. pain, suffering, mobility, etc, is based on all the relevant evidence including (but not limited to) the employee's assertions, relevant medical history and other personal information, assessment of the degree of permanent impairment and the doctor/specialist's comment on the employee's assertions, etc.

9.The delegate's role in determining entitlements under section 27 is to evaluate the individual's assertions in the light of the evidence and factors mentioned in paragraph 8 above and to decide on an appropriate score.

10.Section 27 makes no provision for awarding part scores, ie. score 3.5 for pain and score 2.5 for suffering, and delegates must not adopt such a practice.

11.NEL is only payable where a final award is made under section 24. NEL is not payable where only an interim award is made.

Part D - Resolving Outstanding Cases

1.It is understood that at least some DCs have been holding cases of this type for some time in anticipation of this Instruction, and have so far only paid compensation under section 24 for the amount assessed having regard to section 39 (or s40, s41 or s42) of the 1971 Act.

2.In cases where there is no assessment of the degree of WPI resulting from a pre 1 December 1988 impairment, arrangements should be made as soon as possible to obtain such an assessment by a treating specialist or suitable medical practitioner.  It will not be necessary to obtain a further assessment of permanent percentage loss of efficient use or the date on which a loss became permanent.

3.Any additional compensation payable in accordance with section 27 should be determined as soon as possible after the assessment of WPI is received.

4.Legal advice is currently being sought regarding what action we should take in those cases in which section 24 lump sum payments have already been made between the period 1 December 1988 and now.

5.In any cases where a claimant applies for additional compensation under section 27, the above procedure should be followed, that is, obtain an assessment of WPI and determine section 27 entitlement on this basis.

Part E - “Core Procedures” Investigating Claims For Permanent Impairment

1.Procedures for assessment of claims for permanent impairment from members of the ADF have changed since the permanent impairment provisions were introduced in December 1988. There have been a variety of reasons for these changes, some of which are directly related to the volume of permanent impairment claims received by MCR sections and the need to minimise assessment costs and times. Some of the core permanent impairment claims processing activities in existence since 1988, however, remain applicable and will form the basis of MCR section procedures. The timing of the relevant assessment activities will depend on the circumstances of the particular claim being assessed.

2.These instructions deal with procedures that lead to a final determination for permanent impairment.  As well as a lump sum of up to $105,576.47 for permanent impairment, the legislation provides for an associated lump sum of up to $39,591.18 for non economic loss. These amounts are in addition to weekly payments.

Delegations

3.The power to determine a claim for permanent impairment under the SRC Act rests at the level of AS06 and above.

Claims For Permanent Impairment

4.The claim will usually be initiated by the injured member, however, decision makers and Rehabilitation Advisers may invite claims where appropriate.

5.If the claim is initiated by the member, arrangements should be made for the form “Compensation Claim For Permanent Injury” attached at Part H.

6.This form incorporates basic details of the claim for impairment plus medical certification regarding permanence and extent of impairment.  It will be the responsibility of the claimant to provide supporting medical evidence along with the completed form. Use of the form will facilitate screening of applications.

7.If solicitors are acting on behalf of a claimant, their correspondence may substantially comply with parts of the claim form. Ensure that Part C of the form is completed be the treating Doctor.

8.Where the claim is initiated by a decision maker or Rehabilitation Adviser, it will not be necessary to insist that a the form be completed. In such cases it is assumed that the criteria set out below under 'screening' would have been met.  With the member's concurrence, assessment may proceed.

Screening

9.The purpose of screening is to ensure that only valid claims proceed to assessment. Correct screening will ensure that frivolous or premature claims are dealt with quickly without incurring the financial and resource costs involved in the final assessment process.

10.Once the completed claim form has been received, it should be referred to the decision maker empowered to determine such cases (AS06 and above).  The decision maker should evaluate the claim, reports on file, rehabilitation assessments, etc to determine whether assessment should proceed.  Issues for initial consideration include:

• whether rehabilitative treatment has been completed (the fact that the person has not completed a rehabilitation program should not in itself preclude assessment as interim award may be appropriate).
• whether the impairment is permanent and, if so, when has the optimum level of recovery been reached?
• whether the transitional provisions apply, ie should the claim (in effect) be assessed under the repealed legislation.

Permanence

11.In determining whether an impairment is permanent ie 'likely to continue indefinitely' (s4), regard shall be had to:

•    the duration of the impairment;
•    the likelihood of improvement in the condition;
•    whether all reasonable rehabilitative treatment for the impairment has been undertaken;
•    any other relevant matter.

12.An assessment of the final degree of impairment should only be made when the recovery process has been completed, ie when the full and final effects of convalescence, the natural healing process and active (as opposed to palliative) medical treatment has been achieved.

Outcome of Screening

13.The following possible courses of action will emerge as a result of the screening process:

• defer assessment - rehabilitation incomplete;
• defer assessment - impairment not permanent (interim assessment  inappropriate), etc;
• disallow - no impairment, or impairment unrelated to injury;
• proceed to assessment - rehabilitation incomplete, impairment not permanent but interim assessment appropriate.
• proceed to assess entitlement under Section 24 or 25 (ie arrange specialist examination) - prima facie claim has been established.

Referral to Medical Practitioner

14.Once it has been decided that the claim should be assessed the following steps should be followed.

• Identify appropriate medical practitioner/specialist and appropriate Guide Table(s). Examination by more than one specialist will be necessary in some cases of multiple impairment, eg where an accident victim suffers a fractured pelvis and internal injuries. If there is doubt which Table(s) apply to a particular condition the Australian Government Health Service may be consulted, if necessary, to determine appropriate specialties.
• Arrange appointment(s).  Appointments should be arranged directly with the specialist.  If more than one specialist is involved efforts should be made, if possible, to group the appointments thereby minimising travel for the claimant.
• Advise the claimant of the specialist appointment and arrange for completion of the NEL Questionnaire.

•    Prepare documentation for referral to medical practitioner/specialist. Case summary and copies of essential up to date reports from treating doctors, current X Rays, tests results and NEL Questionnaire, if completed (see variations to process) relevant Tables, copies of Principles of Assessment and set of questions to be answered.

Part F - Acceptable Variations To Core Assessment Procedures (Q's & A's)

Q1.	Must the delegate conduct a NEL interview?
A1.	The interview does not have to be conducted by the delegate. Arrangements may be made for the medical practitioner or specialist to interview the claimant for the purposes of completing the NEL questionnaire.
Q2.	Can the claimant or his/her legal representative submit a completed NEL questionnaire for assessment?
A2.	It is preferable that the an interview be conducted as described in answer 1 above. However, if the delegate is satisfied that the relevant medical and other evidence reasonably supports the claimants responses to the questionnaire, the assertions may be accepted for the purposes of determining the final amount of compensation payable under section 27.
Q3.	At what level should the delegate conducting an NEL interview be?
A3.	There is no specific delegation level required to conduct the interview. The delegation level at which permanent impairment claims are determined is at the ASO6 level or above. A delegate holding a lesser delegation may conduct the interview but only after having received adequate (formal or informal) training to do so. Ultimately, the determining delegate must be satisfied that the evidence supports the assertions made on the questionnaire.
Q4.	Can the permanent impairment assessment be made at the same time the claim is referred to a medical practitioner or specialist for the purpose of assessing initial liability?
A4.	Yes. Delegates should, however, be aware that this may give a claimant an unreasonable expectation that liability will be accepted and the lump sum payment automatic. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that the claimant understands the purposes of the examination and that eligibility for lump sum compensation does not automatically flow. Following receipt of a medical report supporting liability and an impairment of a minimum of 10% of the whole person, arrangements should be made for the NEL questionnaire to be completed. Acceptance of the claimants assertions without medical verification of consistency with the impairment is generally discouraged. However, it is accepted that there will be clear cut cases in which the delegate will be satisfied that the assertions are reasonable and entirely consistent with the nature and degree of impairment identified by the doctor. Note: In cases where there is the potential for dispute between the claimants assertions and the impairment, delegates must not calculate the entitlement under section 27 without section 5 of the NEL questionnaire (particularly 5.3) having been first completed by the examining doctor.

Part G - Permanent Impairment Contact Officers (DMCR-Canberra & Regions)

1.Because of the significant changes occurring to the way claims for permanent impairment for pre 1 December 1988 injuries are managed, and to ensure the greatest degree of consistency in determining these claims, permanent impairment contact officers have been appointed in Defence Centres in each state capital city, NRASC-Darwin, ACT Claims and DAO-Townsville.

2.In an effort to minimise any misunderstandings and/or difficulties during the initial implementation stages of the policy and changes outlined in this Instruction, regional staff should direct all questions or concerns to their local PI contact officer.

3.Any local issues not able to be resolved by this Instruction or with the local PI contact officer should be directed to the contact officer in DMCR-Canberra for clarification and policy direction.

4.Permanent impairment contact officers are listed below:

	OFFICE	CONTACT NAME	PH.NO.
	DMCR-Canberra	Paul Reis	(06) 2668637
		Paul Ontong	(06) 2668628
	DC-Sydney	Liz Bennison	(02) 3772139
		Paul Jones	(02) 3772138
	DC-Melbourne	Alan Stevens	(03) 92826877
		Harry Kowalski	(03) 92826179
	DC-Brisbane	Don Scott	(07) 2334314
		Karen Absalom	(07) 2334286
		Greg Smith (CI)	(07) 2334311
	DC-Perth	Wendy Faithfull	(09) 3112641
	DC-Adelaide	John Nelson	(08) 3056602
		Michele Hamilton (CI)	(08) 3056349)
	DC-Hobart	Christine Moore	(002) 377158
		Mike Armitage	(002) 377156
	ACT Claims	Sandra Austin	(06) 2668640
	DAO-Townsville	John Plater	(077) 215886
	NRASC-Darwin	Jenny Crosthwaite	(089) 802160

Part H - Compensation Claim For Permanent Injury

Department Of Defence (Australian Defence Force)

Filing in this form:

This form must be completed if you wish to claim compensation for  permanent  injury and non‑economic loss. Defence has completed Part A.

About Part B:

You must answer all questions in this part.

About Part C:

Arrange for your treating doctor to complete this part.

(It would be advisable for you to make an appointment with your doctor for this purpose. The reasonable cost of the consultation and the completion of this form by the doctor will be met by Defence.)

PART A ‑ Defence to complete

Reference Number:
Surname:
Forenames:
Date of First Treatment:
Date of Birth:
Accepted Condition:

PART B ‑ Employee to Complete

Postal Address: _________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Telephone home:_______________work:_______________

What permanent injury/impairment(s) of the body do you suffer from as a result of your condition?

________________________________________________________________________________

Has the condition stabilised?     _____  YES        _____ NO

SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT:

DATE: ___/____/19

Remember: Have Part C  completed by your treating doctor

PART C ‑ To Be Completed by Treating Doctor

Diagnosis of Current Condition:

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Is the condition related to the accepted condition? refer to part A

____ YES____ NO   If "no" proceed to signature

If "yes" what impairment(s) to:

bodily parts, bodily functions, bodily systems, have resulted from the condition?

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Do You consider the impairment(s)

____ has/have stabilised at this level indefinitely?

____ will improve?

____ will deteriorate?

Has active treatment of the accepted condition been completed? YES / NO

If "No" what further treatment is indicated?

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

If impairment is not yet permanent, when would you expect it to stabilise?

________________________________________________________________________________

Please describe the extent of the impairment(s) listed above:

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Express as a percentage of the whole person the extent of impairment (refer to attached tables) and state the table to which you are referring.

________________________________________________________________________________

If the accepted condition is considered to be permanent, when would it be reasonable to conclude that this state was reached?

________________________________________________________________________________

SIGNATURE OF DOCTOR:                           Phone No.                 DATE:

Part I - Transitional Claims For Permanent Impairment

(Angelica, Schlenert, Miles)