The Court of Appeal has quashed a Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) assessment of €11,000 in general damages for Tara Wolfe, finding that the assessment did not explain how her shoulder and thigh injuries affected the award.
Wolfe, a catering assistant, claimed she was injured at work on 26 December 2018 when a heavy oven fell on her while she was cleaning it. She reported injuries to her back, left shoulder and right leg. PIAB assessed her claim against Mater Misericordiae Hospital at €11,000 in general damages, identifying her back injury as dominant and placing it in the minor category with substantial recovery within one to two years.
Wolfe challenged the assessment, arguing that the explanation did not show how the amount had been calculated or how her other injuries had been taken into account. The High Court refused her application to quash the assessment. She appealed.
The Court of Appeal said the medical reports and guidelines gave enough information to understand the assessment of the back injury on its own. But the additional injuries made the calculation unclear. PIAB’s statements that assessors had considered lesser injuries were generic and did not tell Wolfe whether, or by how much, those injuries affected the €11,000 award.
The court noted that the back injury’s recovery period could place it near the boundary between two guideline sub-categories. In that context, Wolfe could not tell whether the other injuries had led to a higher amount within the selected category, or had been treated as warranting no additional compensation. The court said claimants need enough information to understand the basis of an assessment when deciding whether to accept it, particularly given the potential costs consequences of rejecting an assessment and pursuing court proceedings.
The court allowed the appeal, quashed the assessment and referred the matter back to PIAB for reconsideration and reasons adequate to explain the general damages assessment in light of all the injuries. It declined to order a detailed or discursive assessment, and did not grant the requested declaration setting out broader requirements for PIAB assessments.
The judgment’s provisional view was that Wolfe should receive her appeal and High Court costs. PIAB was given 21 days to request a hearing to argue for a different costs order.