The High Court has refused a worker’s judicial review challenge to an €11,000 personal injury assessment by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), finding that the reasons provided were adequate in the circumstances.
The case concerned an assessment dated 25 June 2021 for injuries the applicant said she suffered in a workplace accident on 26 December 2018 while employed by Mater Misericordiae Hospital. She applied to PIAB in February 2020. The assessment identified her lower back as the dominant injury, classified it as minor, and placed it in the “substantial recovery one to two years” subcategory.
The applicant argued that the assessment and accompanying letter did not explain how the guidelines had been applied to the medical evidence, why the back injury was treated as dominant and minor, or how her other injuries and a pre-existing back condition had been considered. She also said the lack of reasons made it difficult for her solicitor to advise her about accepting the assessment, given the potential costs consequences if she later pursued court proceedings and did not obtain a higher award.
The court noted that the applicant accepted there was no express provision in the guidelines requiring PIAB to provide the detailed written analysis she sought. It said the statutory duty to give reasons applied where the Board departed from the guidelines; because no departure reasons were included, the court concluded that the guidelines had been applied. It therefore assessed the complaint under general principles governing fair procedures and reasons.
The judgment said PIAB had the applicant’s medical report and reports from doctors it commissioned. The orthopaedic surgeon described the lower back injury as the dominant injury and expected full recovery within three years, with substantial recovery by two years. The applicant’s own medical report said there had been no aggravation of her pre-existing back condition.
The judge considered that the letter, together with the relevant sections of the guidelines and the medical material available to the applicant, gave an objective reader the general reasons for the assessment. The court also said the assessment was not binding and that the costs risk under section 51A was a potential one, comparable to costs risks in other damages litigation.
The court refused the relief sought, including an order to quash PIAB’s decision. It also ruled that the requested declarations requiring more detailed written reasons were unavailable because the guidelines contained no such express requirement. The ruling concerned the adequacy of reasons for this assessment; it did not determine liability for the workplace accident.