No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Mr Carrim's treating doctor's clinical views indicate Mr Carrim's inability to give evidence, which is a known but not public fact.
“Mr Carrim's treating doctor's clinical views speak to Mr Carrim's non-ability to give evidence. And I am using ability deliberately because that obfuscates what is known to us but not to the world at large.”
The Commission's expert argues that Mr Carrim's treating doctor is not independent enough to perform an IME, which leads to undermining the clinical evidence presented by that doctor.
“the Commission's expert... says that the treatment Mr Carrim is receiving can never be an IME exercise because he is not, inverted commas, independent enough of Mr Carrim... seems to undermine the clinical evidence in front of you from that doctor is to say he is not entitled to perform an IME and what he is given you is not an IME.”
There is consensus between Mr Carrim's treating doctor and the Commission's own expert about the voluntary or facilitated nature of Mr Carrim's independent medical assessment.
“there is consensus between Mr Carrim's treating doctor... and the Commission's own expert”