The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Piab) must reassess damages to be awarded to a woman for soft tissue injuries allegedly sustained when an oven fell on her at work, the Court of Appeal has ordered.
The ruling, delivered on Monday, will have implications for how Piab explains its assessment of claims under personal injuries guidelines that have slashed minor injury awards by 50 per cent since they were introduced in April 2021.
The court agreed with hospital catering assistant Tara Wolfe (41) that Piab failed to give sufficient reasons for valuing her shoulder, back and leg injuries at €11,000.
In a judgment on behalf of the three-judge appeal court, Mr Justice Donald Binchy said the basis of the calculation of a Piab assessment is a “matter of critical importance” to a claimant.
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
Afghan student nurses crushed as Taliban blocks last hope of jobs
Emer McLysaght: The seven deadly things you should never buy a child at Christmas
‘No place to hide’: Trapped on the US-Mexico border, immigrants fear deportation
“Claimants are entitled to be given information sufficient to understand the basis of its calculation of general damages without having to resort to guesswork,” he added.
The degree to which Piab must explain its assessment may vary depending on the complexity of a person’s injuries, but it should be “reasonably clear”, in light of other relevant documentation, how the board arrived at an amount, the judge added.
In assessing Ms Wolfe’s injuries, it is clear that Piab considered medical reports and the guidelines, said Mr Justice Binchy. If Ms Wolfe’s only injury was to her back, there could be no doubt that the assessment, when read together with the medical reports and the 2021 guidelines, would constitute a sufficiently reasoned decision.
Piab assessors concluded that Ms Wolfe’s back injury was her dominant injury and fell into the “minor” category, which covers awards up to €12,000. The assessors said the back injury should be assessed at the top end of the minor category “having regard in particular to all the medical evidence and to allow for the lesser injuries”.
‘Generic’
However, the judge added that some of the assessors’ references to Ms Wolfe’s “lesser injury/injuries” were “generic”, providing no information at all as to how these were taken into account or how much, if any, of the €11,000 general damages related to them.
He said it is “beyond any doubt” that this inhibits Ms Wolfe’s ability to decide whether to accept or reject the assessment.
Piab’s fears about a more detailed approach are “entirely unfounded”, the judge added, as the matter could have been resolved with “one simple sentence” setting out separately the value of the dominant injury and then the general damages including the lesser injuries.
The High Court had refused to quash Piab’s assessment of Ms Wolfe’s injuries as it said the assessors would only have to provide a more detailed explanation if they had departed from the 2021 guidelines.
Ms Wolfe, of Donard Drive, Dublin, appealed this dismissal.
The case arises from an incident in a kitchen at the Mater hospital in Dublin during which, Ms Wolfe alleges, a heavy oven she was cleaning fell on top of her due to not being properly secured to the wall. She claims she had to support its weight for about a minute before managing to push it from her torso.
Mr Justice Binchy, supported by Ms Justice Márie Whelan and Mr Justice Robert Haughton, gave a provisional view that Ms Wolfe is entitled to her legal costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The court said it would quash Piab’s assessment and refer Ms Wolfe’s claim back to the board for fresh consideration.
