Aged Care Services v Kontopoulos - [2017] VSC 684

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2016 3660

AGED CARE SERVICES PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
EDNA KONTOPOULOS	First Defendant
DR RODERICK McRAE	Second Defendant
DR SUSAN BRANN	Third Defendant
MR JOHN BOURKE	Fourth Defendant
PROFESSOR ROBERT HELME	Fifth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 May 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Aged Care Services v Kontopoulos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 684 First Revision: 20 November 2017

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Procedural fairness – Diagnosis that could not reasonably be anticipated – Insufficiency of Medical Panel reasons – Application to quash Medical Panel’s Opinion – Mandamus remitting medical questions for reconsideration by a new Medical Panel – Admissibility of further expert medical evidence – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, s 282, 284.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Fleming QC with Ms F Spencer	Thomson Geer
For the First Defendant	Mr A Pillay	Adviceline Injury Lawyers
For the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants	No Appearance	Moray & Agnew

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff’s application

This is an application for judicial review in which the employer Aged Care Services Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) seeks orders in the nature of:

(a) certiorari quashing the opinion of the Medical Panel dated 12 July 2016; and

(b) mandamus remitting the medical questions in respect of which the certified opinion was given to a differently constituted Panel to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

The Medical Panel comprised the second, third, fourth, and fifth defendants who took no active part in the trial of this application (the Panel).[1]
[1]By letter dated 10 February 2017 to the Court the solicitors for the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants advised that their clients will not appear or be represented at the trial but will submit to such orders as the court might make, save they would wish to be heard in the event that a costs order was proposed against them.

Summary of plaintiff’s complaints in relation to the Panel’s process and findings

The plaintiff contends that the Panel fell into jurisdictional error by failing to accord the plaintiff procedural fairness, in essence because the Panel’s psychiatric diagnosis of a Pain Disorder associated with both psychological factors and a now resolved general medical condition in respect of the first defendant and its findings that this condition:

(a) had developed in the context of Edna Kontopoulos, (the first defendant) sustaining soft tissue injuries to her left periscapular region and left peri-hip joint region in the course of her employment on 16 April 2015, yet persisted notwithstanding the resolution of the soft tissue injuries; and

(b) incapacitated the first defendant for her pre-injury employment,

were unexpected and could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contends that:

(a) the first defendant’s case was not advanced in the way now reflected in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aged Care Services v Kontopoulos

Details

AGLC: Aged Care Services v Kontopoulos [2017] VSC 684
Case: [2017] VSC 684
Decision Date: 15 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Aged Care Services v Kontopoulos, the respondent, who suffered a workplace injury, challenged the decision of a Medical Panel that had determined his injury was unrelated to his employment. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court was whether the Medical Panel’s decision was legally sound, particularly in light of procedural fairness requirements and the admissibility of further expert medical evidence. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Panel’s failure to consider a diagnosis that was not reasonably anticipated at the time of its original opinion constituted a breach of procedural fairness.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, particularly sections 282 and 284, which govern the Medical Panel’s decision-making process. The court concluded that the Panel’s reasons did not adequately address the respondent’s condition or the evolving medical understanding of his injury. The court found that the Panel had not provided sufficient reasons to justify its opinion, thereby breaching the principles of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court held that the admissibility of further expert medical evidence was pertinent to the reconsideration of the Panel’s opinion. Consequently, the court ruled that the Panel’s decision was flawed and ordered the matter to be remitted to a new Medical Panel for reconsideration.

In light of the above findings, the court granted the application to quash the original Medical Panel’s opinion and issued a writ of mandamus directing that the medical questions be remitted for reconsideration by a new Medical Panel. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the Panel’s decision-making process was transparent and comprehensive, allowing for all relevant evidence and evolving medical understanding to be considered. The final orders included the quashing of the original Medical Panel’s decision and the direction for a new panel to reassess the respondent’s medical condition in accordance with the statutory requirements and principles of procedural fairness.

Orders