Screen the expert against section 22, and record a specialist registrant for part 1
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the proposed expert's field, the year of the treatment, and the field of the practitioner whose care is in issue, make a table against the peer words in section 22. Where a part 1 report is proposed, record whether the proposal describes a specialist registrant. Do not decide that the opinion would be widely accepted, irrational, or contrary to a written law. Do not draft the report.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether the proposed expert is a peer. The table does not decide the opinion.
- Do not write in Australia into section 22(1). For part 1, record a specialist registrant.
- Keep health and wage records in a firm-controlled tool, not a public one.
- ASCR r 9 and APP 11 apply. Decide if a breach is notifiable under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. Queensland. A screen of a proposed liability expert against section 22 and section 9A.
Produce. A screening table against section 22, with the part 1 specialist-registrant question recorded.
Have ready. The proposed expert's field and registration, if stated; The year of the treatment; Whether a part 1 report is proposed.
Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The proposal does not say whether the person is a specialist registrant. The table records that gap against section 9A(14) and does not decide section 22.
Stop and hand it back when
- The tool is asked to decide that the opinion would be widely accepted or irrational.
- The tool is asked to draft the report or the part 1 opinion.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | From the proposed expert's field, the year of the treatment, and the field of the practitioner whose care is in issue, make a table against the peer words in section 22. Where a part 1 report is proposed, record whether the proposal describes a specialist registrant. Do not decide that the opinion would be widely accepted, irrational, or contrary to a written law. Do not draft the report. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Record the words: widely accepted by peer professional opinion by a significant number of respected practitioners in the field. Do not add in Australia.
- Record that the opinion cannot be relied on if the court considers it irrational or contrary to a written law, that differing opinions may be relied on, and that it need not be universal.
- For a part 1 report, record whether the proposal is a person registered or eligible for registration under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law as a specialist registrant, and competent to assess the medical incident.
- The part 1 report must state a failure to meet an appropriate standard of care, the reasons, and that personal injury was suffered as a result. Section 9A(10) says it need not address an alleged failure to warn.
Sources
- Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 22 · 2026-10-23
- Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) section 9A · 2026-10-23
- Queensland Courts: Using generative AI · 2026-10-23
Section 22(5) takes a warning, advice or other information outside section 22. The Queensland Courts page lists Practice Direction 5 of 2025. Its text was not opened. Do not invent a leave requirement.
The Queensland Courts generative AI page says the user is responsible for accuracy of what is given to a court or tribunal, and that private, confidential, suppressed or legally privileged information must not go into a generative AI chatbot. Practice Direction 5 of 2025 is listed. Its text was not opened.