Cooper v Forestry Tasmania - [2002] TASSC 6

[2002] TASSC 6

CITATION: Cooper v Forestry Tasmania [2002] TASSC 6

PARTIES:  COOPER, Stephen Robert
  v
  FORESTRY TASMANIA

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 54/2001
DELIVERED ON:  1 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  8 February 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Assessment and amount of compensation - Cessation of payments - Particular grounds - Recovery of worker - Service of medical certificate - Identification of the injury in respect of which weekly payments are made.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s86(1)(c).

Pataki v University of Tasmania [2000] TASSC 144, followed.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [232]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  S Taglieri
             Respondent:  D J Gunson
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Phillips Taglieri
             Respondent:  Gunson Williams

Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 6
Number of Paragraphs: 30

Serial No 6/2002
File No LCA 54/2001

STEPHEN ROBERT COOPER v FORESTRY TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

1 March 2002

This is an appeal against an order of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal ("the Tribunal") constituted by Commissioner Chandler. The respondent terminated the appellant's weekly payments in accordance with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), s86(1)(c). The appellant referred the notice given him pursuant to the Act, s86(3), to the Tribunal in accordance with s86(4). The Tribunal dismissed the reference and that order of dismissal is the subject of this appeal.

For present purposes, the facts can be shortly stated as follows. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a labourer. On 1 March 1994, he fell heavily on his tail bone. The fall arose out of and in the course of his employment. The appellant sought medical advice and was certified unfit for work for a few days. His claim for compensation was not disputed and weekly payments were made.

The appellant returned to work shortly after the accident and thereafter remained continuously at work for 3½ years. From time to time following his return to work, the appellant suffered from occasional backaches. He described them as "flare-ups". Towards the end of the 3½ year period, the appellant also developed pain in his groin. In September 1997, he consulted his general practitioner with respect to his pain and was certified fit for light duties. The pain persisted and the appellant was then certified totally incapacitated for work for a period of time.

The Tribunal found that at the time the s86(1)(c) certificate was issued, there was some incapacity for work. There is no challenge to that finding. The issue in the Tribunal was the cause of that incapacity. There were competing medical opinions. One view was that there had been a complete recovery from the soft tissue injury suffered on 1 March 1994 and that the incapacity that commenced in September 1997 was due to degenerative change unconnected with the 1994 accident. The other view was that in the 1994 accident, there occurred an acute axial overload to the appellant's spine which caused damage to an endplate and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cooper v Forestry Tasmania and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] TASSC 6
Decision Date: 1 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooper v Forestry Tasmania involves Stephen Robert Cooper, the appellant, and Forestry Tasmania, the respondent. Cooper, a labourer employed by Forestry Tasmania, filed a claim for workers' compensation after suffering a tail bone injury at work on 1 March 1994. Weekly payments were made following the incident, but Cooper returned to work and remained employed for 3½ years, experiencing occasional backaches and groin pain. In September 1997, Cooper consulted his general practitioner about his pain and was certified unfit for work. He subsequently received medical certificates confirming his incapacity for work. Forestry Tasmania terminated Cooper's weekly payments under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, section 86(1)(c). Cooper appealed the Tribunal's dismissal of his reference against the termination order, arguing that the Tribunal erred in its determination of the injury in respect of which weekly payments were made.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the Tribunal correctly identified the injury for which weekly payments were being made and whether Cooper had wholly or substantially recovered from that injury. The court considered the statutory framework of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, which imposes liability to pay compensation upon the occurrence of an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The court also examined the medical evidence and certificates provided by Cooper and Dr Buzzard, focusing on the causal relationship between the incapacity and the initial injury.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Underwood J, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the Tribunal correctly identified the injury in respect of which weekly payments were being made, which was the tail bone injury from 1 March 1994. The court further found that the Tribunal's conclusion that Cooper's incapacity from September 1997 was not causally related to the initial injury was supported by the evidence. The court rejected Cooper's argument that the Tribunal should have considered the September 1997 incapacity as a separate injury, as the statutory scheme required the identification of a specific injury for the purpose of determining compensation liability. The court also found no error in the Tribunal's reasons for rejecting Cooper's submissions.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the Tribunal's decision that Cooper had wholly or substantially recovered from the effects of the injury in respect of which weekly payments were being made.

Orders