Cooper v NT Link - [2012] NTMC 12

CITATION: Cooper v NT Link [2012] NTMC 012
PARTIES: BRUCE COOPER
v

NT LINK PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:   Work Health
JURISDICTION:   Work Health - Darwin
FILE NO(s):   21041913
DELIVERED ON:   2 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:   Alice Springs
HEARING DATE(s):   27 February - 1 March 2012
JUDGMENT OF:   J M R Neill
CATCHWORDS:

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act -- cancellation of payments of weekly benefits; whether the Worker's lumbar spine condition was part of his claim accepted by the Employer; whether the Worker’s present condition of left shoulder bursitis is a sequela of the work injury; evidentiary and legal onus of proof; pleadings in a “mere appeal”; the merits of the cancellation - whether the Worker had ceased to be incapacitated for work by virtue of the work injury as at the date of the section 69(1) Notice of Decision, or whether the Worker has otherwise ceased to be so incapacitated as alleged in the Employer’s Counterclaim; remedies - interest and indemnity costs.
REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Worker:   Mr Mark Johnson
Employer:   Mr Stuart Cole
Solicitors:
Worker:   ALC Lawyers
Employer:   Minter Ellison Lawyers
Judgment category classification:         B
Judgment ID number:   [2012] NTMC 012
Number of paragraphs:   135

IN THE WORK HEALTH COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
No. 21041913
BETWEEN:

BRUCE COOPER

Worker

AND:

NT LINK PTY LTD

Employer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 2 May 2012)
Mr NEILL SM:

The Worker Bruce Alan Cooper was born on 9 June 1958 and is presently 53 years of age.
Mr Cooper commenced work in Darwin with the Employer as a carpenter, on 25 May 2010. His normal weekly earnings in that employment have been agreed in the sum of $1,280 gross.
Mr Cooper had an accident in the course of that employment on 22 June 2010 (“the work accident”). The Employer does not dispute this nor that Mr Cooper sustained injuries in the work accident. The precise nature of those injuries is in dispute.
Mr Cooper made a claim (“the claim”) under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (“the Act”) on 25 June 2010. The claim was made up of three documents – (i) both the Worker’s and the Employer’s completed parts of the Work Health claim form (Exhibit W9); (ii) an attached Incident Report/Investigation form dated 22 June 2010 (Exhibit W8); and (iii) a prescribed medical certificate dated 25 June 2010 (part of Exhibit W19).
The claim identified the injuries suffered by Mr Cooper in the accident on 22 June 2010 variously as follows: (i) head and shoulder (ii) concussion (iii) torn ligament (iv) skull (v) strain (vi) went down hole hitting left side of the wall with shoulder and head (vii) left-sided neck and upper back pain (viii) difficult to move his neck, also lift left arm (ix) aberrations (sic – I believe this is meant to be “abrasions” and I discuss this later in these Reasons) left arm, left shoulder.
The Employer by its Work Health insurer the TIO accepted the claim by letter dated 6 August…

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 NT Link 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: [2012] NTMC 12
Decision Date: 2 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooper v NT Link involves a dispute between Bruce Cooper, the Worker, and NT Link, the Employer, over the cancellation of weekly benefits payments made to Cooper. Cooper had claimed compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act for injuries sustained in a work accident on 22 June 2010. The Employer accepted the claim but later cancelled the weekly benefits payments, leading Cooper to seek a review of the decision in the Work Health Court. The key legal issues in this case were whether the Employer's acceptance of Cooper's claim included an injury to his lumbar spine, whether the Employer's acceptance of Cooper's claim included acceptance of a subsequently arising condition of bursitis in his left shoulder, the effect of Cooper's limited pleadings, whether the Employer had established a change of circumstances warranting the cancellation of payments of weekly benefits, whether Cooper was entitled to interest on arrears of payments of weekly benefits, and whether Cooper was entitled to indemnity costs. The Court found that the Employer's acceptance of Cooper's claim included acceptance of an injury to his lumbar spine, and the Employer bore the legal and evidentiary onus of justifying its cancellation of payments of weekly benefits. The Court also found that the Employer's acceptance of Cooper's claim did not include acceptance of the subsequently arising condition of bursitis in his left shoulder. The Court ruled that Cooper's limited pleadings did not relieve the Employer of its onus to justify its cancellation of payments of weekly benefits. The Court concluded that the Employer had failed to discharge its onus of justifying the cancellation of payments of weekly benefits. Cooper was found to be entitled to be paid weekly benefits calculated on the basis of total incapacity at all times from the cancellation to the present and continuing. Cooper was not entitled to interest on arrears of payments of weekly benefits. Finally, the Court ruled that Cooper was entitled to his costs of the proceedings on the standard basis. The Court ordered the Employer to pay Cooper arrears of weekly benefits, to pay Cooper's medical and like expenses, and to pay Cooper's costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

Orders