Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Keating
[2006] NSWWCCPD 284
•26 October 2006
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Keating [2006] NSWWCCPD 284
APPELLANT: Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Myrna Magsico Keating
INSURER:Employers Mutual Indemnity (Workers Compensation) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: WCC11252-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 15 March 2006
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 26 October 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Adequacy of Reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Julian Martin
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Edwards Michael Moroney Lawyers
Respondent: T.D. Kelly & Co Solicitors
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: 1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 15 March 2006 is confirmed.
2. Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd to pay Myrna Magsico Keating’s costs of the appeal.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
On 11 April 2006 Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd (‘Carlton Crest’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 15 March 2006.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Myrna Magsico Keating (‘Mrs Keating’) who was born on 2 April 1960 and is 46 years of age. She is married and has an adult son.
Mrs Keating was born in the Philippines and in 1999 migrated to Australia. In May 2002 she commenced casual work with Carlton Crest as a waitress where she averaged 16 hours work per week.
On 26 August 2002, whilst carrying pots of tea and coffee at work, Mrs Keating experienced a sharp pain in her right elbow and arm. She finished her shift, but whilst working her next shift she stopped work due to the pain in her right elbow. In the following weeks she began to experience pain in her right shoulder and neck. Mrs Keating consulted her general practitioner, Dr Neil, and later Dr Chan and was certified unfit for work. She continued to be off work at the time of the arbitration hearing.
Workers compensation benefits were paid by the insurer, however Mrs Keating was advised by letter on 26 July 2004 that liability was denied and weekly benefits of compensation were to cease on 3 September 2004.
Proceedings were commenced in the Commission on 11 July 2005 claiming weekly benefits, medical expenses and lump sum compensation resulting from injury to the right arm, right shoulder and neck.
An arbitration hearing took place on 28 February 2006 and Carlton Crest have appealed from the decision handed down by the Arbitrator.
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The ‘Certificate of Determination’, dated 15 March 2006 records the Arbitrator’s orders as follows:
“1.Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $25,648.99 in Weekly Compensation Benefits pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act in accordance with the following Schedule:
From 3 September 2004 to 30 September 2004 sum of $323.00 per week.
From 1 October 2004 to 31 March 2005 sum of $328.90 per week
From 1 April 2005 to 6 June 2005 sum of $334.10 per week
From 7 June 2005 to 30 September 2005 sum of $334.10 per week
From 1 October 2005 to 27 February 2006 sum of $340.90 per week.2.Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $340.90 per week in Weekly Compensation Benefits as from 28 February 2006 pursuant to s37 of the 1987 Act.
3.Respondent to pay the Applicant’s s 60 reasonably necessary expenses.
4.Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues in dispute in the appeal are:
“1.whether the Arbitrator determined the matter against the weight of the evidence; and
2.whether the Arbitrator failed to give adequate reasons.”
ON THE PAPERS REVIEW
Section 354(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) provides:
“(6)If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act without holding any conference or formal hearing.”
Having regard to Practice Directions Numbers 1 and 6 and the documents that are before me, and the submissions by the parties that the appeal can proceed to be determined on the basis of these documents, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to proceed ‘on the papers’, without holding any conference or formal hearing, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.
LEAVE
Before proceeding to deal with an appeal the Commission must determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 352 of the 1998 Act.
The appeal was lodged within 28 days of the Arbitrator’s decision in compliance with section 352(4) of the 1998 Act.
As the matter involves a continuing award of compensation, backdated to 3 September 2004, it clearly satisfies the monetary threshold and accordingly I grant leave to appeal.
FRESH EVIDENCE
Neither party seeks leave to introduce fresh evidence.
SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENCE AND DISCUSSION
Injury to the right shoulder and neck
Carlton Crest accept that Mrs Keating suffered an injury to her right arm which was diagnosed by a number of doctors as epicondylitis. They further concede that such condition constituted an injury within the meaning of the legislation to which employment with Carlton Crest was a substantial contributing factor. They contend, however, that such condition had either recovered or improved over time to the point where it had ceased to cause any significant incapacity. Carlton Crest dispute injury and causation so far as they relate to problems Mrs Keating has with her neck and right shoulder.
At paragraph 29 of the decision the Arbitrator found that:-
“In the matter before me I have had the benefits of considering the medical reports of nine specialists, an AMS report that reviewed those reports and presented its own findings, clinical notes of the treating GP and an analysis of the surveillance video that reported on the consistency or inconsistency of the Applicant’s presentation during examination. The Applicant’s statement was also in evidence together with vocational assessment reports. In my view of the matter, the weight of the evidence clearly supports the Applicant’s claim and confirms in my mind the fact that the Applicant was injured in the course of her employment, in the manner she alleges, between May 2002 and 26 August 2002 in respect of her right arm, right shoulder and neck and again on 26 August 2002 when she suffered further injury to her right arm, right shoulder and neck as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment. Much of the medical evidence I have referred to is summarized on pages 7 & 8 of the MAC issued by the AMS Dr Roger Pillemer on 28 November 2005. I found his summation on page 5 of the MAC particularly helpful in understanding the medical complexities of this case.”
Carlton Crest accept the Arbitrator’s statements so far as injury to the right elbow but submit only Dr Bleasel and Dr Pillemer support there being injury to the neck and right shoulder. It is submitted that Dr Barrett, Dr Minter, Dr Bencsik, Dr O’Reilly, Dr Honner, Dr Douglas and Dr Kirkham all limited their diagnosis of work-related injury to the right elbow region and were silent on and/or rejected the proposition that the right shoulder and neck were work-related. Mrs Keating disputes this submission and refers to the various doctors’ reports in support of her contention.
Dr Barrett, Orthopaedic Surgeon, examined Mrs Keating on 11 October 2002 (6.5 weeks after the injury) at the request of Carlton Crest. The doctor took a history of sudden pain over the right elbow which radiated into her upper arm and to the right side of her neck. Dr Barrett was of the opinion that a definite diagnosis was difficult to make, although Mrs Keating appears to have an acute right lateral epicondylitis of the elbow and that her employment was a substantial contributing factor to her current condition. The doctor felt the prognosis was poor and that she was unfit for any work.
Dr Minter, Orthopaedic Surgeon, examined Mrs Keating on 20 January 2003 at the request of Carlton Crest. The doctor after noting the sudden onset of pain in the right elbow was of the opinion that it was impossible to provide an accurate opinion as to diagnosis because her physical examination was so extreme. The doctor felt the prognosis was guarded and that her work was a substantial contributing factor to her condition. Dr Minter felt she was fit for selected duties.
Mrs Keating was examined by Dr Bencsik, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, on 13 June 2003 at the request of Carlton Crest. On examination the doctor noted complaints of pain referred from the right elbow up to the shoulder and to the right side of the neck. The doctor diagnosed right lateral epicondylitis at the elbow with a high degree of pain perception in which symptoms exceed clinical signs. He was of the opinion Mrs Keating was fit for light duties, although noted that consideration should be given to surgical decompression. Dr Bencsik was further of the opinion that Mrs Keating’s current condition was directly related to employment with Carlton Crest.
Dr Susan O’Reilly examined Mrs Keating on 18 September 2003 at the request of Carlton Crest. The doctor noted complaints of pain in the right elbow, right upper arm, right wrist, shoulder and neck. Dr O’Reilly diagnosed chronic pain syndrome affecting the entire right arm and particularly the right lateral epicondyle and was of the opinion that employment with Carlton Crest was a factor in the development of right lateral epicondylitis and subsequent chronic pain syndrome. The doctor was further of the opinion that the long-term prognosis was guarded and that having regard to the circumstances of her situation, she agreed with Mrs Keating’s local medical officer that she was totally unfit for work.
Dr John Douglas, Orthopaedic Surgeon, examined Mrs Keating on referral from her general practitioner. On examination on 5 January 2003 the doctor noted slight swelling of the right lateral epicondyle and noted symptoms of pain up to the right shoulder and right side of the neck. The doctor diagnosed true lateral epicondylitis of the right elbow and was of the opinion that she was unfit for work.
Mrs Keating was referred by Dr Douglas to Dr Kirkham, hand and upper limb surgeon. In a report dated 5 August 2003, Dr Kirkham diagnosed:
“1) Lateral collateral ligament injury at the humeral origin right elbow.
2)Probable partial injury of the extensor tendon origin.
3)Possible underlying chondral lesion at the right capitellum.
4)Superimposed hypersensitivity and nerve dystrophy involving the whole of the right upper limb.”
The doctor was of the opinion that “this is an extremely difficult treatment problem”.
Carlton Crest arranged for Mrs Keating to be examined by Dr Richard Honner, hand and upper limb specialist, on 10 September 2003. Interestingly Dr Honner took a history of pain at the right shoulder and neck after Mrs Keating started physiotherapy for the elbow in August 2002. The doctor diagnosed work-related lateral epicondylitis and was of the opinion that her prognosis was guarded because her complaints of severe disabling pain are much greater and more widespread than is normally seen in lateral epicondylitis and because her symptoms have remained troublesome in spite of conservative treatment. He felt surgery could reduce the symptoms of the lateral aspect of the right elbow, but doubted they will change her widespread symptoms affecting the right shoulder and neck. The doctor felt she was fit for left handed selected duties with occasional use of the right hand. Dr Honner examined Mrs Keating again on 22 June 2004 at the request of Carlton Crest and after noting complaints of pain in the right elbow which radiated to the right shoulder and to the back of the neck was of the opinion that aggravation due to her employment at Carlton Crest had long since ceased and that her employment is not contributing any impairment or loss of function in her current condition.
Carlton Crest refer in particular to the report of Dr Richard Evans, consultant physician, who examined Mrs Keating on 18 February 2004 at the request of her solicitors. The doctor took a history of pain in the right elbow, with pain in the right shoulder coming the following day and pain in the neck a week later. Dr Evans accepted that Mrs Keating suffers from lateral epicondylitis affecting the right elbow but was not confident in stating that the neck and right shoulder condition are organic in origin.
Mrs Keating’s solicitors arranged for her to be examined by Dr Kevin Bleasel, neurosurgeon, on 8 December 2004. The doctor took a history of pain in the right elbow followed by pain in the upper back, right shoulder and neck and believed that Mrs Keating’s employment with Carlton Crest was a substantial contributing factor to her right arm injury.
Dr John O’Neill, Consultant Neurologist, provided a medical report dated 19 August 2005 after examining Mrs Keating at the request of Carlton Crest. The doctor noted symptoms of pain in the right elbow that radiated up to the right shoulder and neck. The doctor diagnosed an acute onset of epicondylitis but felt it was outside his area of expertise to comment further. He did note the appearance of a large psychosomatic component to continuing symptoms.
At the teleconference on 19 September 2005, prior to the arbitration hearing, the Arbitrator referred the issue of whole person impairment of the cervical spine and right upper extremity to Dr Roger Pillemer, Approved Medical Specialist. Dr Pillemer examined Mrs Keating on 28 November 2005 and provided a Medical Assessment Certificate. The doctor had access to the medical reports of the 10 doctors referred to above and assessed a 7% whole person impairment. Carlton Crest paid lump sum compensation to Mrs Keating based on this assessment prior to the arbitration hearing. After examining Mrs Keating and reviewing the medical reports provided to him, Dr Pillemer was of the opinion that Mrs Keating “came across as being an entirely straightforward and open person and ….did not feel there was an attempt on her part to exaggerate her physical signs”. The doctor’s opinion on diagnosis included this comment:
“However her symptoms are far more widespread than can be explained by lateral epicondylitis, and the distribution of her symptoms is certainly in keeping with a C6 nerve root lesion, possibly in relation to a disc lesion in the lower cervical region. Importantly as noted the x-ray of her cervical spine carried out on 3 May 2004 did show reversal of the usual cervical lordosis, indicative of muscle spasm in the cervical region. Similarly the referred pain down into the first web space is also very suggestive of a C6 lesion. There was however no evidence of radiculopathy at the present time.
In addition I would have considerable difficulty in trying to explain the hyper-sensitivity over the lateral elbow region on the basis of an underlying epicondylar condition, but it would be easier to understand in terms of some nerve root or nerve irritation.
In summary then, I do not feel that a firm diagnosis has been established in this case and I feel that in order to try and achieve this, further investigations would be indicated including an MRI of her lower cervical region and possibly nerve conduction studies.”
I do not accept the submission of Carlton Crest that the majority of medical opinion did not support the proposition that the neck and right shoulder problems were work-related. Dr Barrett, the first orthopaedic surgeon to examine Mrs Keating took a history of right sided neck and right upper arm complaints and after commenting that a definite diagnosis is difficult to make, concluded that her employment with Carlton Crest was the cause of her current condition. This examination by Dr Barrett took place 6.5 weeks after the accident.
Both Dr Bencsik and Dr O’Reilly had a history of neck and shoulder complaints and accepted Mrs Keating’s condition as work-related. The medical report from Dr Douglas is addressed to the general practitioner and the report from Dr Kirkham is addressed to Dr Douglas and as such do not canvas the issue of causation, however both doctors noted symptoms involving the right shoulder and neck. Dr Honner and Dr Evans are both of the opinion that the widespread symptoms involving the right shoulder and neck do not have a physical explanation, but do not expressly reject the proposition that they are work-related as submitted by Carlton Crest.
As Deputy President Byron stated in John Robinson t/as Robinson’s Pharmacy v King [2005] NSWWCCPD 39 (‘Robinson’):
“The weight and relevance of the evidence is a matter in the discretion of the Arbitrator, upon due consideration of that evidence. In circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the Arbitrator has failed to exercise his discretion fairly and lawfully, the decision may be overturned. The circumstances in which this occurs are where the Arbitrator has acted upon a wrong legal principle, allowed irrelevant considerations to influence his decision, made a material mistake as to the facts or has failed to take into account relevant and material considerations, (House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505; Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 at 520, and Re National Roads and Motorists Association Ltd [2003] FCAFC 206).”
Having considered the medical and documentary evidence in this matter, together with the transcript of submissions at the arbitration hearing, I can see no error in the Arbitrator’s finding that Mrs Keating injured her right arm, right shoulder and neck whilst working for Carlton Crest.
Carlton Crest refer to the clinical notes of the treating general practitioner, Dr Chan, in further support of their submission that Mrs Keating’s neck and right shoulder condition are not causally related to her employment with Carlton Crest. It is submitted that Mrs Keating told every single doctor who asked, that she had never experienced neck pain or problems prior to the injury in August 2002. The clinical notes however reveal that on at least four and possibly five occasions between August 2001 and the injury in August 2002, Mrs Keating had consulted Dr Chan complaining of significant neck pain.
On reviewing the medical reports and evidence before the Arbitrator I agree with Carlton Crest that Mrs Keating has not informed the examining doctors of prior problems with her neck. The clinical notes of Dr Chan are handwritten and difficult to read. Whilst I agree that there appears to be four or five consultations prior to the injury that refer to the neck, it is also apparent that at least three of those consultations refer to left sided neck complaints whereas the injury with Carlton Crest was on the right side. There was no oral evidence at the arbitration hearing and no application by Carlton Crest to cross-examine Mrs Keating on this issue. I do note however that the issue was raised by Counsel for Carlton Crest in submissions. In my view, having regard to the difficulty reading the notes, this is a matter where Mrs Keating should have been asked questions directly on the issue, if some reliance is to be placed on it by Carlton Crest.
Carlton Crest submit that the Arbitrator failed to give adequate reasons in explaining why he accepted some medical opinions in preference to others on the issue of injury to the neck and right shoulder.
At paragraph 17 above I quoted from the Arbitrator’s decision and it can be seen that the Arbitrator considered the medical evidence and was assisted by the Approved Medical Specialist in “…understanding the medical complexities of this case”. In the decision the Arbitrator made specific reference to a number of doctors when summarizing the submissions of the parties. As Deputy President Byron stated in Camden Council v Hancock [2005] NSWWCCPD 6 (‘Hancock’):
“An Arbitrator has a statutory duty to provide adequate reasons for decision (section 294(2) of the 1998 Act and Rule 73 of the Rules). Fundamentally, the reasons given must be capable of conveying adequately to the parties, the basis upon which the Arbitrator came to his decision.”
Although the reasons as set out in the decision are not overly detailed, I am satisfied that after reading the medical reports and other documentary material that they are sufficient to “…convey to the parties who are acquainted with the circumstances of this matter, the basis upon which the Arbitrator came to his decision” (Hancock).
Incapacity
In paragraph 29 of the decision the Arbitrator made the following finding on incapacity:
“On summation it would appear that the Applicant’s symptoms are genuine and that she has a real problem in utilizing her right arm. Being right hand dominant the Applicant is presented with a situation where currently her opportunities for re-employment are, in my view very limited, to the extent that her restrictions would leave her with little hope of finding work on the open market. In this respect I agree with the Applicant’s counsel that Mrs Keating is totally impaired and should be entitled to the full benefits of s 37 of the 1987 Act as claimed in her Updated Wages Schedule of 27 February 2006.”
Carlton Crest submit that the relevant time when considering the issue of incapacity was the date compensation stopped (3 September 2004) and thereafter, whereas the Arbitrator failed to make any specific reference to the situation pertaining at the relevant time and has merely assumed a continuity in the degree of incapacity and its cause over the entire period from the injury to date and continuing. Carlton Crest submit that the Arbitrator’s finding that Mrs Keating is totally incapacitated is against the weight of the evidence and in support of their submission it is pointed out that only Dr Evans, Dr Bleasel, Dr Honner, Dr O’Neill, Dr Revai and Dr Pillemer saw Mrs Keating at the relevant time or thereafter.
Dr Honner in June 2004 was of the opinion that Mrs Keating was fit for selected light work as a waitress but constitutionally unfit to carry out work on a full-time basis involving any vigorous activity. Dr Evans in February 2004 felt that Mrs Keating was fit for work which does not require vigorous use or repetitive use of the right arm or lifting weights heavier than 4 kilograms with the right hand.
Dr Revai, Psychiatrist, examined Mrs Keating in August 2005 at the request of Carlton Crest. The doctor was of the opinion that Mrs Keating was psychologically quite fit for work. Dr O’Neill in August 2005 stated that “accepting current pain complaints, Mrs Keating is clearly not fit for work including her previous work as a waitress”. As Carlton Crest point out Dr O’Neill was of the opinion there was a large, if not total, psychosomatic component to continuing symptoms.
Dr Bleasel in December 2004 was of the opinion that “…with this type of restriction she would have no hope of finding work on the open market”. Carlton Crest submit that this opinion of Dr Bleasel is not a medical opinion having the quality of expert evidence, but is rather a partisan statement going to the very issue the Arbitrator is required to decide. It is further pointed out that Dr Bleasel appears not to have conducted a clinical examination whatsoever. There is some substance to this submission as there is no reference in Dr Bleasel’s medical report to an examination of Mrs Keating. I note the doctor’s comment on incapacity was in reference to Dr Honner’s report of 10 September 2003 (see paragraph 25 above) where Dr Honner then felt Mrs Keating was fit for selected duties, which she would carry out mostly with her left hand and only occasional light use of the right hand.
Dr Pillemer in November 2005 did not express an opinion on incapacity, but Carlton Crest submit he took a history from Mrs Keating that she has improved quite a bit at the present time and providing she is careful she can go for almost a day at a time without particular discomfort. On reading Dr Pillemer’s Medical Assessment Certificate this is correct, however he also noted Mrs Keating can still use her right upper limb, but tends to avoid doing this, and when she does always has to support her right arm.
Mrs Keating submits in response that the Arbitrator not only relied on the medical evidence but had regard to her statement and an investigator’s report regarding observations of her. At paragraph 27 of the decision the Arbitrator stated:
“Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant’s evidence in conjunction with the video surveillance tapes demonstrated that the Applicant, who is right hand dominant, is totally impaired as a result of her injury which extends to her right arm and shoulder, and even if she had a residual capacity she is, as a result of her injuries, still unemployable.”
Mrs Keating in her statement dated 21 May 2005 stated “I still cannot work due to the pain in my right arm, right shoulder and my neck”. The investigator’s reports refer to observations of Mrs Keating on 10 August 2005 where she was seen to open the letterbox with her left hand, hold her right hand limp against her body and used a straw broom in her left hand to sweep leaves off the driveway. There were earlier investigators’ reports referring to observations in July 2004 and December 2004 which also demonstrated Mrs Keating using her left arm in preference to her right. (Mrs Keating is right hand dominant).
Mrs Keating further submits that where there is an untrained worker who has lost the effective use of her dominant right arm, with limited alternate experience, where English is her second language, where many specialists place severe restrictions on her capacity for work, the Arbitrator properly determined Mrs Keating is effectively totally incapacitated.
In my opinion it was open to the Arbitrator to make the decision that he did on total incapacity for work. The test is not whether on a consideration of the evidence on appeal, a Presidential Member agrees with the decision, but whether it was reasonably open to the Arbitrator to make it (Robinson).
Carlton Crest introduced into evidence at the arbitration hearing a vocational assessment report of ARC Rehabilitation & Risk Management Services Pty Ltd and submit that this report is of particular significance. It is a lengthy report prepared by Occupational Rehabilitation Consultants and is relevant when considering the issue of partial incapacity. Having upheld the Arbitrator’s finding on total incapacity it is not necessary that I deal with this submission.
Carlton Crest submit that the Arbitrator failed to give adequate reasons on the issue of incapacity and by merely stating Mrs Keating “…has little hope of finding work” is not sufficient and fails to address the well established test in Mitchell v Central West Health Service (1997) 14 NSWCCR 526 (‘Mitchell’). This authority deals with the issue of partial incapacity and in my opinion a better authority is Lawarra Nominees Pty Ltd v Wilson, Court of Appeal, No. 40448/95, 29 November 1996, unreported where Mahoney P said:
“Normally, a court in determining whether a worker is totally or partially incapacitated will, in a practical sense, ordinarily consider two questions: what is the relevant labour market, i.e. what work was the worker doing or could he reasonably be expected to do; and of that kind of work, what is he physically able to do…..
It is concerned with the capacity to do work of a particular kind or kinds and in a context which will produce income. I do not wish by what I say to narrow the scope of the inquiry to be undertaken in the assessment of capacity or of compensation. But in assessing whether a worker is wholly or partially incapacitated and to what extent, the Court will ordinarily not be concerned, for example, to determine in an artificial or theoretical situation what he could do if the work available to him would allow him to stand for a time, sit for a time, cease when the pain he suffers became unacceptable, and generally work as, in his condition, he would fairly wish to work. The Court does not, as it were, spell out according to the periods of time which could be spent at work in such a way and what he could do during those periods, the extent of his capacity for work. The exercise is, in my opinion, a more practical exercise. It involves the assessment of a capacity ‘for work’ having regard to the realities of the labour market in which he is to be engaged. The Compensation Court, within the scope accorded to it in this regard, must assess whether, in a case such as the present, the pain and disabilities from which the worker suffers by reason of his compensable injuries are such that he is able to do those things which will permit him to do work in the relevant labour market.”
Although brief I am satisfied that the Arbitrator set out the “essential…grounds upon which the decision rests” (Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247). As Meagher JA said in Beale v GIO of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 at 443:
“…reasons need not necessarily be lengthy or elaborate [but relate] …to the function to be served by the giving of reasons…there is no need to refer to the relevant evidence in detail, especially in circumstances where it is clear that the evidence has been considered.”
DECISION
For the above reasons the decision of the Arbitrator dated 15 March 2006 is confirmed.
COSTS
Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd is to pay Mrs Keating’s costs of the appeal.
Julian Martin
Acting Deputy President
26 October 2006
I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF JULIAN MARTIN, ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
ASSOCIATE
0
4
0