Apollo Nominees v Thornton - [2002] TASSC 93

[2002] TASSC 93

CITATION: Apollo Nominees v Thornton [2002] TASSC 93

PARTIES:  APOLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 512 225)
  v
  THORNTON, Peter Marcus

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 80/2000
DELIVERED ON:  12 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  22 October 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Assessment and amount of compensation - Weekly payments of compensation - Other matters - Original claim accepted - Further certificate claiming new condition relating to same event - Jurisdiction on referral.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s81A.

State of Tasmania v Cook (2000) 9 Tas R 191; State of Tasmania v Parsons [2002] TASSC 59; Swan v Miller [2001] TASSC 15; State of Tasmania v West [2001] TASSC 62, referred to.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [200]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  M K Wilkins
           Respondent:  S Taglieri
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Page Seager
           Respondent:  Phillips Taglieri

Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 93
Number of Paragraphs: 14

Serial No 93/2002
File No LCA 80/2000

APOLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 512 225)
v PETER MARCUS THORNTON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J

12 November 2002

On 21 December 2000, the respondent worker (in the course of his employment) suffered an injury to his knees. He made a claim for compensation stating the circumstances as:

"Lost balance and fell into wheelbarrow crushing my legs"

with the injury described as:
"Burn and grazes to calfs [sic] crushed knees."

The appellant employer did not dispute entitlement or liability and commenced to pay compensation. The respondent continued to provide medical certification in similar form with minor alterations to language, such as "friction burns and soft tissue injury to knees". On 4 July 2002, a further certificate was provided stating incapacity for work for the period 2 July to 5 August 2002, stating the symptoms to be:

"Bilateral knee pain. Depressed mood and poor memory."

The provisional/final diagnosis (not marked by the certifying medical practitioner) was stated to be:

"Crush injury to leg. Depressed mood."

The certificate, par4, contains the wording following the terms "medical diagnosis", "(if changed, give reasons)". The certification did not address this issue. However, the certificate stated that a referral had been made for "psychotherapy" to "Lyn Syme" and sought to refer the matter to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in accordance with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, s81A. The appellant, by its notice, gave the reasons for disputing liability as:
"(1)Your claim for compensation by way of a medical certificate dated 4 July 2002 does not substantially relate to the injury that you sustained arising out of and in the course of your employment on 21 December 2000;
(2)Your incapacity is as a result mainly or in part, of depression and memory deficiency which are not as a result of your claim dated 9 January 2001 and are claims for compensation which have not previously been made."

The Tribunal determined that it had no jurisdiction to…

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 Apollo Nominees v Thornton

Details

AGLC: Apollo Nominees v Thornton [2002] TASSC 93
Case: [2002] TASSC 93
Decision Date: 12 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Apollo Nominees Pty Ltd v Peter Marcus Thornton involves a dispute between an employer and an employee regarding the assessment and amount of compensation following an injury sustained by the employee during the course of employment. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the employer's dispute over the employee's claim for compensation. The primary issue before the court was whether the employer was entitled to dispute the employee's claim for compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, given that the employee had previously claimed compensation for an injury sustained in December 2000 and later provided a medical certificate in July 2002 claiming incapacity due to bilateral knee pain, depressed mood, and poor memory.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing the employer's rights to dispute a claim for compensation. It considered the amendments made by Act 99 of 2000 to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, particularly sections 80A, 81A(3), 81AA, and 81A. The court noted that the employer had not disputed the initial claim for compensation but instead raised objections to a subsequent medical certificate. The court found that the addition of symptoms such as "depressed mood" and "memory loss" in the July 2002 certificate constituted a claim not previously made. Consequently, the employer was entitled to dispute this new claim and refer it to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal. The court held that the employer could not dispute the original claim for the knee injury but could dispute the new symptoms as they related to a different condition. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration in accordance with the law.

Orders