Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Edwards

[2016] VSC 630

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2015 05972

ALCOA OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED	Plaintiff
v
DR WILLIAM EDWARDS & ORS (in accordance with the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDonald J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 October 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Edwards & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 630

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Medical Panel – Whether reasons of panel inadequate – Whether panel failed to have regard to relevant considerations – Panel’s reasons disclosed clear path of reasoning – No failure by panel to have regard to relevant considerations - Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 s 284.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G Moloney	Hunt & Hunt
For the First to Third Defendants	No appearance
For the Fourth Defendant	Mr T Seccull with Mr J Perry	Saines Lucas

HIS HONOUR:

1. Barry Richards was employed by Alcoa of Australia Limited (‘Alcoa’) between February 1989 and February 2001.  On 4 January 1999, Mr Richards completed a Workcover claim form seeking an entitlement to payments for weekly compensation (including medical and like expenses) for injury to his back, legs, ankles and arms.  He claimed he suffered injury on 14 June 1997 when he slipped through a set of steps on a ladder and fell.  Mr Richards’ claim was accepted and payments were made in accordance with the Accident Compensation Act 1985.  The claim included claims for impairment benefits, settled in October 1999, and a common law action settled in February 2001.

1. In August 2014, Alcoa received a request from Mr Richards’ surgeon, Mr Beischer, for a ‘triple arthrodesis’ of the right foot.  Alcoa rejected this request by notice dated 8 October 2014 on the grounds that the injury suffered in 1997 was described as ‘soft tissue’ injury (the ‘termination decision’).  Alcoa contended that the work related injury caused aggravation of a pre-existing condition. They contended that Mr Richards had undergone a fusion of his right ankle joint some years prior to commencing employment with Alcoa, and that the incident of June 1997 had aggravated this condition.[1]

   [1]See Exhibit A: Affidavit of Stephen Hoggan and exhibits thereto sworn 23 November 2015, “SH-7”, Notice of Termination dated 8 October 2014.

1. Alcoa’s termination decision was referred to conciliation under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 (‘the Act’).  On 30 June 2015, a conciliation officer referred three questions to the convenor of medical panels:

(i)     What is the nature of the worker’s medical condition (including any sequelae) relevant to the claimed injury?

(ii)  What is the extent to which any medical condition of the worker

(a)        resulted from or was materially contributed to by;

(b)         results from or is materially contributed to by;

any, and if so which, of the claimed injuries?

(iii)             Do you consider the following medical service(s) or proposed medical service(s) appropriate for the worker’s injury…