{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02433371958285052, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is it time to limit the role of the judiciary in compensation matters?

The current use of expert medical opinion in both adversarial and inquisitorial legal matters has been criticised and a number of alternatives have been suggested. These alternatives include pre‐trial (non‐adversarial) consensus reports by panels of experts, College‐appointed panels of experts, or expert assessors to sit with and advise the judge. A further model that deserves consideration is that of the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA). This has an established role in the compensation system for Australian Veterans and specified Defence Force personnel. The RMA provides Statements of Principles which state the causes, within the bounds of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, of a specified disease, injury or death on the basis of the available ‘sound medical scientific evidence’.