ADV PREM HID

The Commission's case doubts the medical evidence of Mr Carrim's treating clinician based on his presence at X place recorded on CCTV footage.

“the thesis underlying their opposition to the postponement and why they want to tied down my client to a specific date is to say the fact of these movements, the fact of these payments, the fact that he is not in the hospital all the time brings into doubt the medical diagnosis that the clinician has given him”

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.”

There is ongoing pressure related to events starting from 4 May, involving a medical expert whose credibility is being questioned but who has volunteered to give evidence under oath at the Commission.

“the phenomenon only started on 4 May onwards... This doctor has made himself available to the Commission in numerous instances”