Coad v Tasmania - [2021] TASFC 2

[2021] TASFC 2

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	Coad v Tasmania [2021] TASFC 2
PARTIES:	COAD, Dennis Stephen
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	1019/2019
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	C v The State of Tasmania (Department of Police & Emergency Management) [2019] TASWRCT 12
DELIVERED ON:	17 February 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:	13 November 2019
JUDGMENT OF:	Wood J, Geason J, Martin AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Workers' compensation – Assessment and amount of compensation – Amount of compensation during incapacity – Lump sum payments – Permanent impairment and loss – Workers not entitled to lump sum compensation unless impairment exceeds threshold - Threshold for physical impairment not less than 5% whole person impairment and threshold for psychiatric impairment not less than 10% – Worker suffered injury to cervical spine assessed as 5% and post-traumatic stress disorder assessed as 6% – Whether Tribunal erred by not combining impairments – Beneficial construction – Impairments can be combined if either threshold met – Whole person impairment should be assessed as 11%.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 71 and 72.
Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s 8A.
Wilson v Wilson's Tile Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328; Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1;
Attorney-General for Tasmania v L C [2018] TASFC 6, 28 Tas R 70, referred to.

Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [361]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: S Taglieri SC
Respondent: P Turner SC & L Kelly

Solicitors:

Appellant: Simmons Wolfhagen
Respondent: Office of the Solicitor-General

Judgment Number:	[2021] TASFC 2
Number of paragraphs:	99

Serial No 2/2021

File No 1019/2019

DENNIS STEPHEN COAD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	FULL COURT WOOD J GEASON J MARTIN AJ (Dissenting) 17 February 2021
Orders of the Court
1 Appeal allowed.

2 Order of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal of 11 April 2019 set aside.

Serial No 2/2021

File No 1019/2019

DENNIS STEPHEN COAD v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FULL COURT
WOOD J
17 February 2021

1 The appellant was assaulted in the course of his employment as a police officer on 28 January 2007. He suffered an injury to his cervical spine and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and made a claim for compensation pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998. The claim was accepted by his employer. Years later, on 5 October 2017, he sought a determination of entitlement to lump sum compensation under the Act and asserted his percentage of whole person impairment was 11%. This percentage was based on an opinion of occupational physician Dr Peter Sharman and psychiatrist Dr Michael Evenhuis.
2 The evidence before the Chief Commissioner of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal was largely uncontentious. There was no issue that the appellant had sustained an injury to his cervical spine and post-traumatic stress disorder; that these were suffered as a consequence of the assault on 28 January 2007; that he had sustained permanent…

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 Coad v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Coad v Tasmania [2021] TASFC 2
Case: [2021] TASFC 2
Decision Date: 17 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, constituted by Wood J, Geason J, and Martin AJ, considered an appeal by the worker, Coad, against a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal. The dispute concerned the assessment of compensation for multiple injuries sustained by the worker, specifically a physical injury to the cervical spine and a psychiatric injury in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Tribunal had determined that the worker was not entitled to lump sum compensation because neither individual impairment threshold was met.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) permitted the combination of separate physical and psychiatric impairments to meet the statutory threshold for lump sum compensation. The Act stipulated that a worker was not entitled to such compensation unless their whole person impairment from a physical injury was not less than 5%, or from a psychiatric injury was not less than 10%. The worker's cervical spine injury was assessed at 5% whole person impairment, and their post-traumatic stress disorder was assessed at 6% whole person impairment.

The Court reasoned that the Act should be construed beneficially in favour of the worker. It held that the legislative intent was to allow for the aggregation of impairments where the combined effect of multiple injuries resulted in a significant overall impairment, even if individual injuries did not meet their respective thresholds. Applying this principle, the Court determined that the worker's impairments should be combined, resulting in an 11% whole person impairment.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court ordered that the worker was entitled to lump sum compensation based on the combined whole person impairment of 11%.

Orders