Independent Medical Examination in Queensland: Delay Explained

If you have made a personal injury claim in Queensland, you may be asked to attend an independent medical examination. That request can be stressful, especially if you have already seen several doctors, your claim has been going for some time, or the insurer only raises the issue when the matter is close to trial.

The short answer is this: you usually need to cooperate with reasonable medical assessment requests, but that does not mean an insurer or defendant can delay for months, ignore deadlines, and then use their own unreadiness to hold up your case.

Recent Queensland decisions show that defendant delay matters. The courts will look closely at when the insurer or defendant knew it wanted the assessment, what steps it took, whether a proper panel was provided, and whether the injured person has otherwise moved the claim forward.

What is an independent medical examination?

An independent medical examination Queensland claimants attend is usually arranged by an insurer, defendant or respondent in a compensation claim. The doctor or expert is not your treating doctor. Their role is usually to prepare a report about your injuries, treatment, work capacity, functional capacity or future needs.

In a CTP claim, the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 allows an insurer to request certain medical or functional assessments where agreement cannot be reached. In other personal injury claims, similar issues can arise under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 or under court rules.  Similar rules apply to WorkCover claims under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

These examinations can be important. A defendant is generally entitled to investigate the claim and obtain evidence. But the right is not unlimited.

Do you have to attend every insurer medical assessment?

Not always.

In Queensland, a claimant may not be required to attend if the request is unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious. That does not mean a claimant can refuse simply because the appointment is inconvenient, uncomfortable, or arranged by the other side. The question is whether the request is objectively unreasonable in the circumstances.

A request may be more difficult to justify where:

• the insurer has already had a fair opportunity to arrange assessments;
• the same issue has already been covered by another expert;
• the proposed appointment is very late;
• the delay is unexplained;
• the assessment would interfere with trial readiness;
• a proper panel was not provided; or
• the defendant is relying on problems caused by its own inactivity.

That last point is important. Courts are less sympathetic when the delay is self-inflicted.

Why delay matters

Delay is not just a diary problem. In a personal injury claim Queensland courts expect parties to move matters forward efficiently. Injured people often need finality. They may be waiting for treatment funding, income replacement, home modifications, care, or simply the ability to move on with their lives.

A late medico-legal examination can delay settlement, delay trial, and increase costs. It may also create unfairness where the injured person has complied with their obligations but the insurer or defendant has not.

The cases do not set one fixed deadline. There is no universal rule that three months is always acceptable or six months is always too long. The court looks at the whole chronology.

What the Queensland cases say

Bona v Jeffries: about 6 to 9 months of delay

In Bona v Jeffries & Another, the plaintiff had a motor vehicle accident claim. After the compulsory conference did not resolve the matter, the plaintiff served an occupational therapy report.

On 21 August 2020, the plaintiff’s solicitors asked whether the defendants required any further medical reviews. The defendants said they were taking instructions about a panel. A panel was not provided until 29 October 2020, about 9.5 weeks later.

The plaintiff promptly selected an occupational therapist, but the selected expert was unavailable until May 2021. The plaintiff then requested a fresh panel with availability within three months. That did not happen.

By 21 December 2020, about four months after the first enquiry, the plaintiff served a request for trial date and objected to any further review because of the delay. The defendants did not file their application to compel the assessment until 11 March 2021, about 6.5 months after the first enquiry. The earliest appointment then being put forward was 13 May 2021, almost nine months after the plaintiff first asked whether further reviews were required.

The Court refused to compel the examination. It accepted that the defendants had a legitimate forensic interest in occupational therapy evidence, but held that any prejudice was caused by their own unexplained delay.

For claimants, Bona is useful because it shows that an independent medical examination Queensland insurer wants may become unreasonable if the insurer delays and fails to provide a suitable panel within a reasonable time.

Slaughter v Harvey: delay was not the main issue

Slaughter v Harvey involved a medical negligence claim and a proposed psychiatric examination. The plaintiff wanted to impose conditions on the examination, including having a support person present, recording the session, refusing photographs, limiting the appointment length, and avoiding invasive tests.

The plaintiff relied on Bona to argue that there was no default if the request was unreasonable.

The Court accepted the principle, but the result was more balanced. It held that the plaintiff could not dictate every aspect of how the psychiatrist conducted the assessment. The refusal to allow a support person and the refusal to allow recording did not make the examination unreasonable. However, it was unreasonable to insist on taking a photograph over the plaintiff’s objection, and it was unreasonable to require a session to run for more than about two hours without a break or consent.

This case is a caution. Bona does not create a broad right to refuse an examination. A claimant needs a proper basis for saying the request is unreasonable. Personal preference is not enough.

Wallace v Caesarstone: about 18 months of delay

Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd involved an engineered stone claim. A consent order required the defendants to provide any IME panels by 5 February 2024. They did not do so.

The plaintiffs later served a request for trial date on 6 June 2025. The defendants still had not provided the panels. The plaintiffs filed an application on 11 July 2025. The panels were only provided on 8 August 2025, about 18 months after the court-ordered deadline and only one week before the hearing.

The Court dispensed with the defendants’ signatures on the request for trial date. The defendants were not allowed to use their own failure to comply with the timetable as a reason to stop the plaintiffs progressing the case.

Wallace is especially powerful where there has been a missed court order or agreed timetable. The delay was much longer than in Bona, but the principle is similar: a defendant who neglects expert steps may face consequences.

Comparing the delays

The three cases sit on a useful spectrum.

In Bona, the delay was about 6.5 months to the defendant’s application, and almost nine months to the earliest proposed appointment. That was enough to defeat the application.

In Slaughter, timing was not the central issue. The case is more about conditions of examination and the need for objective reasonableness.

In Wallace, the delay was about 18 months from a court-ordered deadline to provide IME panels. The Court treated that as a serious case management failure.

The stronger your chronology, the stronger your argument. If your case involves repeated follow-ups, no proper response, poor appointment availability, missed deadlines or a late attempt to delay trial, the decisions may be helpful.

What should you do if an assessment is requested late?

If you are asked to attend a late medico-legal examination, do not simply refuse. Get advice first. A refusal can have consequences if the request is reasonable.

Useful questions include:

• When did the insurer or defendant first raise the issue?
• Have they already had you assessed by experts?
• Did they provide a proper panel?
• Are the experts actually available soon?
• Has there been a court order or agreed timetable?
• Has the delay been explained?
• Is the matter otherwise ready to progress?
• Would the appointment delay settlement or trial?

A late request is not automatically invalid. But if the insurer has delayed without explanation, the law may give you options.

When should you get legal advice?

You should get advice as soon as an insurer, defendant or respondent asks you to attend another assessment and you are unsure whether it is reasonable.

This is particularly important if your matter is close to settlement conference, mediation, trial readiness or a request for trial date. The timing can affect strategy.

At Best Injury Lawyers, we help injured Queenslanders understand what they do and do not have to do during the claim process. We can look at the request, the history of the claim, the relevant deadlines, and whether the proposed assessment is likely to be reasonable.

If you are worried about a late insurer medical assessment, fill in our online enquiry form. We will review your enquiry and contact you about your next steps.