Cine San Marco Pty Ltd v Ayres
[2005] NSWWCCPD 160
•21 December 2005
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:Cine San Marco Pty Ltd v Ayres [2005] NSW WCC PD 160
APPELLANT: Cine San Marco Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Edward William Joseph Ayres
INSURER:Employers Mutual Indemnity (Workers Compensation) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: WCC 17824-03
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 22 October 2004
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 21 December 2005
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Weight accorded to the evidence, adequacy of reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Robin Handley
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Nevill & Edwards, Solicitors
Respondent: Leitch Hasson Dent, Solicitors
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: 1. The decision of the Arbitrator, dated 22 October 2004, is revoked and the following decision is substituted:
“1. The Respondent, Cine San Marco Pty Ltd, is pay Mr Ayres lump sum compensation of $23,000 under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect of a 17% whole person permanent impairment.
2. Costs are to be held over until such time as the matter is finalised.”
2. The Appellant, Cine San Marco Pty Ltd, is to pay Mr Ayres’ costs in this appeal as agreed or assessed.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
On 17 November 2004, Cine San Marco Pty Ltd (‘CSM’) sought leave in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) to bring an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator dated 22 October 2004.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Edward William Joseph Ayres, who was born on 1 September 1949 and is aged 56. Mr Ayres was employed by CSM as a chef/chef’s assistant/cleaner at its restaurant at the Fox Studios Complex, Moore Park in Sydney. On 14 March 2002, he claims to have collided with an open oven door, injuring his upper right and left arms and his neck. He notified CSM of this injury in April 2002 and made a claim for workers compensation in May 2002. By letter dated 9 May 2003, Mr Ayres’ solicitors made a claim for compensation in respect of permanent impairment and pain and suffering.
On 13 November 2003, the Commission registered Mr Ayres’ ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ in respect of his claim for medical, hospital or related expenses and for compensation for permanent impairment and pain and suffering. On 22 March 2004, the Arbitrator undertook a teleconference with the parties, following which she referred Mr Ayres to an Approved Medical Specialist for assessment.
On 23 April 2004, Mr Ayres was examined by an Approved Medical Specialist, Dr AK Lethlean, Neurologist, whose Medical Assessment Certificate (‘MAC’) was issued by the Commission on 22 July 2004. Dr Lethlean diagnosed “cervical disc injury – radiculopathy (right C7)”, noting arm symptoms had “greatly improved following foraminotomy/nerve root release”. He said, in his opinion, “current impairment is attributable to the injury of 14/03/02”. He found the “cervical spondylosis, disc degeneration, osteophyte formation” was affected by a pre-exisiting condition, for which he deducted 10% of the 19% whole person impairment that he assessed, attributing a permanent impairment of 17% to the injury that occurred as a result of the incident on 14 March 2002.
On 16 August 2004, the Arbitrator undertook a further teleconference with the parties. On 27 August 2004, conciliation having proved unsuccessful, the Arbitrator conducted an arbitration hearing, at the conclusion of which she directed the parties to file written submissions. On 22 October 2004, the Arbitrator issued her decision in the terms set out below.
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
The Certificate of Determination, dated 22 October 2004, records the Arbitrator’s orders as follows:
“1. That the Respondent pay the Applicant as lump sum compensation under s66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows - $23,139 in respect of 17% whole person permanent impairment.
2. That the matter of costs be held over until all matters are settled, but noting the Respondent actions in this matter post receipt of the MAC.”
In her ‘Statement of Reasons for Decision’, the Arbitrator summarised the resolution of the issues in dispute as follows:
“• That the MAC issued on 22 July 2004 displays sufficient reasons to show the basis on which Dr Lethlean based his conclusions and is therefore valid.
• The MAC is presumed correct (s362 (1)) and therefore the Respondent make relevant payment to the Applicant.
• If after 14 days, the remaining outstanding matters of Pain and Suffering (s67) and medical expenses (s60) are still in dispute, that the Applicant inform the Commission for this matter to be referred to the arbitrator for further teleconference and process of resolution.”
The Arbitrator found CSM’s conduct in these proceedings to be “disturbing”. She said: (1) CSM did not indicate at the first teleconference that causation was an issue; (2) while later questioning the MAC, CSM did not appeal the MAC when this was open to it; and (3) at the conciliation conference, CSM made a new submission, without prior notice, that the MAC could not be relied on in accordance with the principles in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sproules [2001] NSWCA 305.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The principal issues in dispute in the appeal are whether the Arbitrator accorded appropriate weight to the medical evidence and whether she gave adequate reasons for her decision. The parties’ submissions on these issues are discussed more fully below.
ON THE PAPERS REVIEW
Section 354(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) states:
“(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.”
I have had regard to Practice Directions Numbers 1 and 6, the documents that are before me, and the submissions by the parties. CSM submits the appeal involves complex issues of law and practice and the parties should have the opportunity to make oral submissions. Mr Ayres’ solicitors request an oral hearing but fail to explain why. Having considered these submissions, I am satisfied, nevertheless, 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.
Neither party sought to adduce fresh evidence.
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. With regard to section 352(2), the principal issue according to CSM being causation, the amount of compensation at issue is 100% of the $23,139 awarded by the Arbitrator. I am therefore satisfied that the section 352 threshold has been met, and I grant leave to appeal.
EVIDENCE
The principal medical evidence relied upon by Mr Ayres’ solicitors was the reports of Dr John O’Neill, Mr Ayres’ treating Consultant Neurologist, and of Dr John Bentivoglio, Orthopaedic Surgeon. In his report dated 30 May 2002, Dr O’Neill related Mr Ayres’ history of his condition and how, about two or three days after walking into the oven door, the effect of which was “that he had to suddenly stop in his tracks and he also twisted his body slightly”:
“he began to notice “tingling” involving the pads of the right middle, ring and little fingers. Over the next three weeks there was gradual onset of additional symptoms including pain which was mainly felt deep and medial to the right shoulder blade and upper arm.”
Dr O’Neill said:
“I believe symptoms are arising from pathology involving the right C7 and C8 nerve roots. If on the basis of disc prolapse, I would accept events were triggered by the incident of 14/3/02.”
In his report dated 11 August 2003, Dr O’Neill recorded that on 18 June 2002, Mr Ayres underwent a surgical decompression of the right C7 nerve root performed by Dr Peter Bentivoglio, Neurosurgeon. Dr O’Neill said that, in his view:
“the blow to the right clavicular region on 14.3.2002 was instrumental in rendering symptoms from previously asymptomatic constitutional degenerative disease of the mid to lower cervical spine.”
He said:
“I do not agree with the views of Dr Lim in his report of 14.4.2003. As previously stated, I have no doubt that the incident of 14.3.2002 was responsible for the symptoms as they developed over the period from that date up to at least 20.6.2002.”
Dr John Bentivoglio, in his report dated 14 February 2003, recorded Mr Ayres’ history of an injury to his right shoulder and also “a twisting injury to his neck region”. Dr Bentivoglio referred to investigations in relation to Mr Ayres’ condition including that a “myelogram performed in June 2002 showed evidence of a right sided C6/7 lesion”. Dr Bentivoglio concluded that Mr Ayres “would have sustained damage to the C6/7 level of his cervical spine region in the incident described”. Dr Bentivoglio confirmed his opinion in a later report dated 6 February 2004. He said although Mr Ayres had:
“obtained some improvement in his symptoms as a result of the surgical treatment he has not been rendered entirely asymptomatic. This gentleman will continue to have some degree of symptoms present in his neck and right upper limb indefinitely.”
The principal medical evidence relied upon by CSM was a report by Dr Michael Lim, Occupational Physician, dated 14 April 2003. Dr Lim records Mr Ayres’ account of the incident in some detail, including how he walked into the oven door that was jutting out.
“• He struck his right clavicular region at its middle.
• The impact caused him to rotate his torso to the right.
• As his body rotated, he felt a crack in his neck.”
In the course of discussing Dr O’Neill’s report dated 30 May 2002, Dr Lim noted that although Dr O’Neill records that the blow to Mr Ayres’ shoulder caused him to stop in his tracks and twist his body slightly, Dr O’Neill does not record any mention of a cracking sound from Mr Ayres’ neck. After discussing the various medical reports, Dr Lim concludes:
“The disc protrusion could not have been caused by the incident described. The onset of initial symptoms a few days after the incident was coincidental. Significant symptoms did not manifest until some time later...”
As stated above, in the course of these proceedings, the Arbitrator referred Mr Ayres for assessment by an Approved Medical Specialist, Dr AK Lethlean, Neurologist. In the Medical Assessment Certificate issued on 22 July 2004, Dr Lethlean gives both a general and a clinical history, including findings on clinical examination and details of clinical investigations. He refers to the report of a “Cervical Myelogram & P/M CT” by Dr Grant W Bigg-Wither dated 7 June 2002. Dr Bigg-Wither stated: “The right C7 nerve root has an amputated appearance at myelography and appears swollen just before leaving the thecal sac.” Dr Bigg-Wither concluded his report with the comment: “imaging features of compression of the right C7 nerve root which is probably due to extruded material.” A later report of a “MRI Cervical Spine” dated 30 June 2003 (the doctor’s signature is illegible and he or she is not otherwise identified) reports “mild degenerative disc disease”.
Dr Lethlean summarised the injuries and diagnoses as follows:
“Shortly after a right clavicular/cervical/shoulder injury, Mr Ayres developed features of a cervical disc injury-radiculopathy (right C7), arm symptoms greatly improved following foraminotomy/nerve root release. Examination shows a reduction in the range of cervical movements, with pain at these extremes, sensory changes in the right inner arm forearm and hand, and a mild reduction in the right triceps reflex.
The imaging studies show degenerative changes, with right C7 nerve root involvement due to disc protrusion C6/7 levels.
Cervical spondylosis C6/7 disc injury, right C7 radiculopathy.
There is a consistency of presentation, and between symptoms and signs and investigations.
It is reasonable to attribute the development of the radiculopathy to the incident described 14/03/02...”
Dr Lethlean commented:
“In my opinion, current impairment is attributable to the injury of 14/03/02, but I note the alternative view expressed by Dr Michael Lim. On the balance of probability, I have accepted that the incident as described was capable of rendering symptomatic an asymptomatic disc protrusion, or have produced the localised posterolateral disc protrusion and [sic] subsequently demonstrated.”
Later in De Lethlean’s Medical Assessment Certificate, in answering a question asking him to indicate which body part was affected by the pre-existing injury, abnormality or condition, Dr Lethlean stated: “Cervical spondylosis, disc degeneration, osteophyte formation.” He then attributed 10% of the assessed whole person impairment of 19% to this pre-existing condition, giving a permanent impairment attributable to the injury of 17%.
SUBMISSIONS, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
At the arbitration hearing, the parties acknowledged there was no dispute that Mr Ayres suffered a blow to his right shoulder when he walked into an open pizza-oven door. Furthermore, there was no dispute that the symptoms reported by Mr Ayes emanate from his neck. The issue in dispute was one of causation – whether the blow to Mr Ayres’ right shoulder could give rise to the symptoms in his neck. CSM contended that it could not. In the appeal, CSM appears to make four main submissions. These are examined in turn.
Sufficiency of Evidence as to Causation
First, CSM contends, referring to the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (‘Makita’), that the evidence failed to establish to a sufficient standard that the incident caused Mr Ayres’ neck problems.
With regard to the Medical Assessment Certificate issued by Dr Lethlean, CSM contends he failed to explain properly the basis for his opinion: he expressed a conclusion that the impairment was attributable to the injury “without indicating the scientific basis upon which that conclusion was reached thereby removing any capacity in the trial of fact to test the validity of that conclusion” (CSM’s submission paragraph 13). Dr Lethlean’s opinion fell short of the Makita test, yet it was that opinion on which the Arbitrator relied, and thus her conclusion is similarly flawed. By contrast, Dr Lim was the only medical expert to comply with the requirements of Makita, and in his opinion Mr Ayres’ disc protrusion could not have been caused by the incident on 14 March 2002.
Mr Ayres’ solicitors submit that while the principles in Makita are not directly applicable in non-judicial proceedings, nevertheless any decision must be based on evidence and the rules of evidence are a useful guide. In this case, the Arbitrator had three expert medical opinions in support of her determination as to causation - those of Drs Bentivoglio, O’Neill and Lethlean. CSM’s submissions only challenge Dr Lethlean’s opinion and do not address the other two expert opinions. It was for the Arbitrator to determine the issue of causation. It was open to her to adopt Dr Lethlean’s opinion, especially given the weight of other medical evidence supporting his opinion. Mr Ayres’ solicitors submit there was more than sufficient admissible material to support the Arbitrator’s conclusions as to causation, and there was no demonstrable error in her decision.
In my view, the principle derived from the decision in Makita is that an expert witness must reveal the factual and intellectual basis for his or her opinion in order to facilitate an evaluation of the validity of that opinion by the trier of fact in determining what weight, if any, to accord to it. The Commission is, of course, not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate (section 354(2) of the 1998 Act). It must, however, act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case (section 354(3)), and the rules of evidence provide a guide for the Commission as to the relevancy and reliability of evidence.
CSM’s submissions focus on the Arbitrator’s reliance on Dr Lethlean’s Medical Assessment Certificate. Section 326(1) of the 1998 Act provides that an assessment certified in a medical assessment certificate of the degree of permanent impairment of a worker as a result of an injury, and whether any proportion of permanent impairment is due to any previous injury or pre-existing condition or abnormality, is conclusively presumed to be correct. Section 326(2) provides that as to any other matter, the assessment certified is evidence but not conclusive evidence in proceedings before the Commission. In the present proceedings, Dr Lethlean’s opinion as to causation clearly falls into the second category of (non-conclusive) evidence. Indeed, the issue of causation is for the Arbitrator to determine.
An examination of the Arbitrator’s Reasons for Decision indicates that she considered the parties’ submissions on the application of the principle in Makita to Dr Lethlean’s opinion on causation. She noted Dr Lethlean’s comment that “[t]here is a consistency of presentation and between symptoms and signs and investigations”, and that while acknowledging the alternative view expressed by Dr Lim, Dr Lethlean accepted, on the balance of probability, “the incident as described was capable of rendering symptomatic an asymptomatic disc protrusion, or [to] have produced the localised posterolateral disc protrusion and [sic] subsequently demonstrated”.
An examination of Dr Lethlean’s Medical Assessment Certificate reveals a reasonably detailed general and clinical history, including findings on physical examination and details and dates of clinical investigations. While it is true that Dr Lethlean’s record is note-like in style, it appears that a significant amount of information is included. All this precedes his summary of injuries and diagnoses and, in my view, a fair reading of that summary should take into account his previously stated history. Dr Lethlean’s reference to “a consistency of presentation and between symptoms and signs and investigations” is a reference to his preceding account of Mr Ayres’ general and clinical history. My conclusion is that Dr Lethlean sufficiently stated the factual and intellectual basis for his opinion on causation to enable its validity to be evaluated.
In relation to the Arbitrator, the issue seems to be whether there was sufficient evidence to support her finding on causation. In my view, the expert evidence of Drs O’Neill, Bentivoglio and Lethlean indicating a nexus between the incident on 14 March 2002 and the injury, was sufficient evidence. Clearly, it was open to the Arbitrator to prefer the opinions of Mr Ayres’ treating neurologist, Dr O’Neill, and two specialists, Drs Bentivoglio and Lethlean, over that of Dr Lim. I note Deputy President Fleming’s comment in Knight v Eyles Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] NSW WCC PD 73 at paragraph 40:
“Interference with an Arbitrator’s discretionary judgement as to the weight of evidence should only be done where it is manifestly obvious that the discretion has so miscarried that it has not been exercised fairly and lawfully.”
In Mr Ayres’ case, I am not satisfied that there has been such a miscarriage. However, while there may have been sufficient evidence to support the Arbitrator’s finding on causation, this raises the question whether her stated reasons on the issue of causation were adequate.
Adequacy of Reasons
CSM’s second submission is that the Arbitrator failed to give any or adequate reasons as to why she accepted Mr Ayres’ neck problems were causally related to the injury. She failed to reconcile the inconsistency of opinion between Dr Lethlean and Dr Lim, and failed to explain why she preferred Dr Lethlean’s opinion.
Mr Ayres’ solicitors submit that in accepting the opinion of Dr Lethlean, the Arbitrator clearly accepted Dr Lethlean’s reasoning, which was also supported by Drs O’Neill and Bentivoglio. The basis of the Arbitrator’s reasoning was clear and no appellable error is apparent.
Generally as to the adequacy of reasons required for such a decision, I am guided by the decision of Deputy President Fleming in Mayne Health Group t/as Nepean Private Hospital v Sarah Sandford [2002] NSW WCC PD 6 (‘Mayne’), at paragraphs 45 to 48. The Deputy President said Arbitrators have a statutory obligation to provide adequate reasons for decisions (see section 294(2) of the 1998 Act, and Rule 73 of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003) and failure to do so constitutes an error of law. She stated, at paragraph 46:
“The standard by which the ‘adequacy’ of reasons is determined is relative to the nature and context of the decision made and the decision-maker.”
However (paragraph 48), to succeed on the ground of inadequate reasons requires:
“that the inadequacy sufficiently demonstrates that the Arbitrator has failed to exercise his or her duty to fairly and lawfully determine the application.”
(See YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 247.)
A significant part of the Arbitrator’s Statement of Reasons is taken up with a discussion of the Medical Assessment Certificate issued by Dr Lethlean. While the Arbitrator notes she has no record of CSM raising causation as an issue at the teleconference on 22 March 2004, it was clearly raised as an issue by CSM at the arbitration hearing (arbitration hearing transcript page 2) and both parties addressed it in making oral submissions.
In my view, except for Dr Lethlean’s Certificate, the Arbitrator does not adequately address the medical evidence. In fact, she makes no mention of the reports of Drs O’Neill and Bentivoglio, and her only reference to Dr Lim’s report is in the course of quoting Dr Lethlean. Although it was for the Arbitrator to determine on what medical evidence to rely in making her findings, it was also incumbent on her to refer to the other significant medical reports and say whether or not those reports influenced her findings and why.
A further omission from the Arbitrator’s decision is her failure to make a specific finding on the question of causation. Even if her criticism of CSM’s approach to the proceedings is warranted, it was made apparent to her by CSM at the arbitration hearing and in CSM’s subsequent written submissions, that CSM contended that the incident on 14 March 2002 did not cause Mr Ayres’ neck problems. Causation was clearly in dispute. It was therefore necessary for the Arbitrator to make a finding on the issue of causation in the course of her determination. She did not do so, thereby failing to comply with her obligation under Rule 73 of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003 to include in her Statement of Reasons “(a) the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based ...”. The Arbitrator’s failure to adequately address the relevant medical evidence and to make findings on material questions of fact constitutes an error of law.
Criticism of CSM
CSM’s third submission is that the Arbitrator’s criticism of its approach in the proceedings is unfounded. It must always have been apparent that causation and nexus were the issues in this case. CSM therefore contends the Arbitrator's comment “infects the decision with error” (CSM’s submission paragraph 36): either she had regard to irrelevant considerations or she gave insufficient reasons as to the relevance of her criticism to her ultimate conclusions.
Mr Ayres’ solicitors submit that no appellable issue flows from such criticism. The Arbitrator also made the same general criticism at the arbitration hearing but CSM made no application for disqualification for bias or the like.
As noted above, to succeed on the ground of inadequate reasons, it must be apparent that the Arbitrator failed to exercise her duty to determine the application fairly and lawfully. In my view, the Arbitrator’s criticisms of CSM, especially in view of her focus on Dr Lethlean’s Certificate, could be taken to suggest that she did not determine the application fairly. Thus, in my view, there are grounds for revoking the Arbitrator’s decision.
Amount Awarded
Finally, CSM noted that the Arbitrator made an award for an incorrect amount in respect of permanent impairment. Mr Ayres’ solicitors acknowledge that the Arbitrator made a minor error in the amount of compensation awarded for Mr Ayres’ 17% permanent impairment: she awarded $23,139, whereas the correct figure should have been $23,000, a difference of $139.
An application of the formula for calculating Mr Ayres’ entitlement to compensation for a 17% permanent impairment under section 66(2)(b) of the 1987 Act, shows that the correct figure is $23,000. Thus, clearly, the Arbitrator made a minor error in her calculation and this obvious error should be corrected.
In conclusion
At the same time as revoking the Arbitrator’s decision, I intend to substitute what, in my view, is the correct or preferable decision. In the section on ‘Evidence’ above, I discussed the relevant medical evidence. Earlier in this section, under the heading ‘Sufficiency of Evidence as to Causation’, I discussed whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding as to causation, and concluded that there was, for the reasons stated there. I note, in particular, that Dr Bentivoglio stated the incident on 14 March 2002 caused damage to Mr Ayres’ cervical spine. Dr O’Neill, Mr Ayres’ treating neurologist, said the incident triggered the symptoms from Mr Ayres’ previously asymptomatic degenerative disease of the mid to lower cervical spine. Dr Lethlean noted that the imaging studies show degenerative changes but, having recorded a reasonably detailed general and clinical history, attributed the “current impairment to the injury of 14/03/02” with only a 10% deduction from his assessment of permanent impairment for the pre-existing condition. The only dissenting opinion appears to be that of Dr Lim. Given the other evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident on 14 March 2002 triggered an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the degenerative disease affecting Mr Ayres’ cervical spine, thereby constituting an ‘injury’ under section 4 of the 1987 Act.
However, section 9A of the 1987 Act states that no compensation is payable in respect of an injury unless the employment concerned was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. In my view, the preponderance of the medical evidence, especially that of Dr Lethlean, points to this and I so find.
My having found causation to be established, Dr Lethlean’s assessment of the degree of permanent impairment is conclusively presumed to be correct (section 326(1)). Mr Ayres is, therefore, entitled to compensation pursuant to section 66 of the 1987 Act for his 17% permanent impairment in the sum of $23,000. He is also entitled to compensation for pain and suffering pursuant to section 67, and for medical, hospital and other expenses pursuant to section 60.
DECISION
The decision of the Arbitrator dated 22 October 2004 is revoked and the following decision is substituted:
“1. The Respondent, Cine San Marco Pty Ltd, is pay Mr Ayres lump sum compensation of $23,000 under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect of a 17% whole person permanent impairment.
2. Costs are to be held over until such time as the matter is finalised.”
COSTS
The Appellant, Cine San Marco Pty Ltd, is to pay Mr Ayres’ costs in this appeal as agreed or assessed.
OTHER
I note there are outstanding issues concerning payment of compensation in respect of pain and suffering under section 67, payment of Mr Ayres’ medical, hospital or other expenses under section 60 of the 1987 Act and the costs of the original proceedings. These issues do not appear to have been discussed at the arbitration hearing and, in my view, there is insufficient evidence for me to make relevant findings. Therefore, in default of agreement, the parties are at liberty to apply to the Commission for these outstanding issues to be listed before an arbitrator for determination.
Robin Handley
Acting Deputy President
21 December 2005
I CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF ROBIN HANDLEY, ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
ASSOCIATE
2
1
0