|
Have you read the commentary on reg 27 and this case in the S&W legisaltion book? Basically it seems that it says the term is to be given its ordinary meaning rather than a purposive meaning. The Commissioner generally approved what is/was said in the IB Handbook for Medical Services Doctors:
"There is no legal definition of 'major surgical operation'. Your opinion has to be reasonable and based on the facts of the individual case.
It is not possible to give a definitive list of operations and procedures which would medically be thought of as major since other circumstances such as the diagnosis, the form of operation and presence of any other related treatments would reasonably need to be considered."
The commissioner pointed out that it is for the DM, not the doctor, to decide, and should take into account all the circumstances including other disabilities. The actual case concerned an arthrolysis (freeing of the joint) of the non-dominant elbow of a man of 33 which the Commr decided was not a major operation.
Examples of thing which should not be major operations: arthroscopy and washout of a knee, injections of steroids into a joint, cataract removal, simple hernia repairs, insertion of a stent into a coronary artery, bunion correction.
Examples of things that are definitely major surgery: open heart or brain surgery, hip or knee replacement, hysterectomy, kidney transplant, removal of a malignant tumour.
In between, and possibly depnding on the facts -???
|
