Legal Research
Cases
Conroy v Romas

Conroy v Romas

Case [2019] VSC 695 18 October 2019

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Legitimate Expectation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2018 00475

LEESA CONROY	Plaintiff
v
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR EVANGE ROMAS	First Defendant
JOHN SKELLEY	Second Defendant
DR JOHN KING	Third Defendant
DR DIANE NEILL	Fourth Defendant
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED	Fifth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 May 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 October 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Conroy v Romas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 695

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Medical Panel – Opinion as to worker’s work capacity – Extent of impairment – Suitable employment – Whether consideration of relevant matters – Whether consideration of irrelevant matters - Adequacy of reasons – Jurisdictional error – Accident Compensation Act 1985 s 5; Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 s 313.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N Horner and Ms J Zhu	John McCristal Injury Lawyers
For the Fifth Defendant	Mr M Fleming QC and Ms S Gold	Hall & Wilcox

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Ms Leesa Conroy, seeks judicial review of a Medical Panel Opinion of 21 May 2018 (‘Opinion’). The Panel’s Opinion determined that she had suffered a soft tissue injury to her left elbow in the course of her employment with Woolworths Limited, the fifth defendant, to which I will refer as the defendant, but had current work capacity from 26 December 2016. The plaintiff argues that the Panel’s conclusion about her work capacity involved jurisdictional error, as it failed to consider properly her lack of education and occupational skills and her residual pain from her soft tissue injury. She also contends that the Panel provided inadequate reasons and thereby made errors of law on the face of the record.

Background

The plaintiff was born in 1971, left school in Year 9 and then worked in a range of jobs for at least the next 25 years.

In February 2013, she commenced work with Beer, Wine and Spirits (‘BWS’), which is owned by Woolworths, as a liquor assistant for 20 hours a week. Her job involved handling and sometimes lifting large cases of beer, and wine and liquor.[1] On 25 June 2014, while handling and lifting heavy slabs of alcohol, her left elbow became painful. Despite receiving medical treatment, the pain persisted. She worked on for two weeks but then stopped, and commenced receiving weekly payments under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘AC Act’). She attempted to return to work but was unsuccessful, and was dismissed one year later.
[1]Medical Panel Reference Number M118/0486, 21 May 2018, Reasons for Opinion, 4 (‘Reasons’).

The plaintiff’s weekly payments ceased from 26 December 2016 after she received a 130 week notice which was based on her current work capacity, or on the alternative basis that that she had no current work capacity but this was not likely to continue indefinitely. These conclusions were based principally on a Transferable Skills Analysis conducted by Konekt, which identified ‘suitable vocational options’ which it…

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 Conroy v Romas

Details

AGLC: Conroy v Romas [2019] VSC 695
Case: [2019] VSC 695
Decision Date: 18 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Conroy was a party in a legal dispute against Romas. Conroy, a worker, sought judicial review of a decision by Romas, a medical panel, regarding his work capacity and extent of impairment. The decision was made under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the medical panel considered all relevant matters and did not consider any irrelevant matters in reaching their opinion, and whether the reasons provided were adequate. Additionally, the court examined if the panel's decision amounted to a jurisdictional error.

The court found that the medical panel had failed to consider all relevant matters, specifically the nature of Conroy's injuries and their impact on his ability to work. Furthermore, the panel had considered irrelevant matters, such as Conroy's past work history, which did not directly relate to his current work capacity. The court also concluded that the reasons provided by the panel were inadequate, as they did not clearly articulate how the panel arrived at its opinion. Given these findings, the court determined that the panel's decision amounted to a jurisdictional error, as it was based on an incorrect application of the relevant legislation.

Consequently, the court quashed the decision of the medical panel and remitted the matter back to the panel for reconsideration. The panel was instructed to properly consider all relevant matters, avoid considering irrelevant matters, and provide clear and adequate reasons for its decision. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that medical panels follow the correct legal framework when assessing a worker's work capacity and extent of impairment, and that their decisions are based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors.

Orders