Ho Yiu Key Dr, Wollongong, NSW

I attended an independent medical examination (IME) with Dr Yiu-Keu (Yuki) Ho in Wollongong as part of my NSW workers compensation claim. The insurer arranged this IME to assess my whole person impairment (WPI) and my entitlement to ongoing weekly payments under section 39, after already relying on a very low WPI assessment to dispute my lump sum claim. My experience of this IME was extremely negative, and I would not recommend Dr Ho for medico-legal/IME work where someone’s income, treatment and housing depend on an accurate and fair report. In the room vs in the report During the consultation, Dr Ho said a number of things to me about my neck and spinal issues, my nerve pain, my right arm symptoms, my neurological problems and my work capacity that led me to believe he understood the seriousness of my condition. He seemed to acknowledge the severity of my pain, my limitations in daily activities, and the long-term impact of my injuries. However, when I later saw his written report, it did not match what I remember being discussed in the room. In my opinion, the report: • Downplayed or ignored key parts of my history and symptoms • Minimized the severity of my pain and functional limitations • Failed to properly reflect my neurological issues (including left-sided symptoms and bladder urgency) • Was then used by the insurer to support a much lower WPI percentage than other specialists have assessed Why I recorded the IME Before seeing Dr Ho, I had already experienced a pattern where IME doctors would say one thing to my face and then write something quite different in their reports. Because of that, I lawfully recorded this assessment as a party to the conversation to protect my interests in my workers compensation claim. When I compare what was actually said in the appointment with what appears in his written report, I believe there is a serious mismatch. From my perspective, the report does not accurately reflect the consultation, and it minimises or omits important details I gave about my pain, limitations and day-to-day struggles. Impact on my claim and life Dr Ho’s report has had very real consequences. It has been relied on by the insurer to: • Support a low WPI figure that I strongly disagree with • Justify disputing my permanent impairment lump-sum entitlement under section 66 • Review and potentially limit my weekly payments under section 39, after I had already been paid more than 220 weeks of weekly compensation The way his report has been used has contributed to extreme financial stress, interruptions to treatment (including disputes about my medicinal cannabis and other necessary care), and periods where I have experienced homelessness while still trying to fight for a fair outcome on my claim. This is not something I say lightly. Failure to engage with the full medical picture From my point of view, Dr Ho did not meaningfully engage with all the available medical evidence about my condition, including: • Long-standing cervical spine issues and nerve damage • Neuropathic pain • Right forearm injury and nerve trauma • Left-sided symptoms • Bladder urgency and other neurological problems • The serious impact on my mental health, sleep and capacity to sustain work I did not walk away feeling like he had fully understood the complexity of my case or the extent to which my injuries limit my daily life. My recommendation to other injured workers This review is based entirely on my personal experience, the recording of my own IME, and the way the resulting report has been used in my workers compensation claim. Others may have a different view, but if you are an injured worker sent to Dr Ho for an IME, I would strongly suggest that you: • Bring a support person if you can • Keep detailed notes about exactly what is said during the appointment • Understand that his report may be used by the insurer to decide your WPI, weekly payments and treatment • Get