Commission expert

The medical evidence from Mr Carrim's treating clinician about clinical diagnosis and observations is undisputed and challenged only on collateral issues by the Commission’s expert report.

“the medical evidence in front of you from Mr Carrim's treating clinician is undisputed on the clinical diagnosis and the clinical observation that Mr Carrim's treating medical professional makes. There is an expert report, and I am not even going to mention the expert's name, put up by the Commission, which generously does not actually dispute that clinical observation. What it does is it speaks to two collateral issues.”

The Commission's expert criticizes Mr Carrim's medical practitioner for allegedly not doing an IME exercise and says the treatment cannot be an IME because there is no independence; however, the treating doctor is not providing forensic independent evaluations.

“the Commission's expert attempts to make is that the Commission's expert, as we understand it, says that the treatment Mr Carrim is receiving can never be an IME exercise because he is not, in inverted commas, independent enough of Mr Carrim. And the point I am making is that is exactly correct because the treating doctor is not performing an IME for some forensic, independent, objective, evaluative purpose like under Section 79 inquiry or under a Rule 36 type inquiry. He is the patient's, Mr Carrim's, own treating doctor.”