Delegates should read the whole report and not merely the summary of conclusions. Delegates should unde — rstand the reasoning implicit in the specialist medical report. Where there is an apparent internal contradiction, faulty logic or circular reasoning within the report, the Delegate should ask for a clarification. Alternatively, where this appears to the D — elegate not to be an isolated instance but so fundamental as to invalidate the recommendations, the Delegate should set that report aside and commission a report from another specialist.
Example 1
As an example, consider the case where the bulk of a psychiatric report (concerned with a depressive illness) outlines a long series of traumatic and alarming events from a client's private family life. It then concludes: 'In the absence of any non-work r — e — lated factors I must conclude that the disorder has a work related origin'.
In that case, the Delegate should again approach the psychiatrist and seek an explanation as to why the non-compensable traumatic events vetted exhaustively in the report were not involved in the origin of the disease.
Example 2
In a second example, a psychiatrist accepts that objective evidence shows the client did not experience the traumatic ADF service-related events that he had originally claimed and that in fact the military service was uneventful. 'Nevertheless, because Mr X subjectively identifies his Army service as the source of his difficulties, his current condition is directly attributable to that service'.
In that case, the report should be set aside and another commissioned from a different specialist.