CSR Limited v Jong

Case [2008] NSWWCCPD 69


WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: CSR Limited v Jong [2008] NSWWCCPD 69
APPELLANT: CSR Limited
RESPONDENT: Joao Alcino Martins Jong
INSURER: CSR Limited (self insurer)
FILE NUMBER: WCC7020-07
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 5 March 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 3 July 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Sections 4, 9A, 38 and 38A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; fresh evidence; adequacy of evidence to support findings of injury and incapacity; adequacy of reasons; impact of video evidence; decision to permit amendment of the claim; section 261(1) of the Workplace Injury Management & Workers Compensation Act 1998.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Leigh Virtue & Associates
Respondent: Frisina Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

(1)     The decision of the Arbitrator dated 5 March 2008 is revoked and the following decision made in its place.

(a) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant weekly benefits compensation pursuant to section 38 of the 1987 Act as follows:

(i) From 28 May 2007 at the

rate of $568.50 per week for a period of 26 weeks to 27 November 2007; and

(ii)From 28 November 2007 to 27 May 2008 at the rate of $568.50per week.

(b)     The Respondent to pay the

Applicant’s section 60 expenses.

(c)     The Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

(2)   The matter is remitted to the Arbitrator at first instance for the determination of the Applicant’s entitlements to weekly compensation (if any) after 27 May 2008.

(3)   The Appellant, CSR, is to pay 80% of the Respondent, Mr Jong’s costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

  1. On 1 April 2008 CSR Limited (‘the Appellant/CSR’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision dated 5 March 2008.

  1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Joao Alcino Martins Jong (‘the Respondent/Mr Jong).

  1. Mr Jong is presently 53 years of age. He was born in East Timor and came to Australian in 1980. He commenced employment with CSR in September 1987. He was principally employed at CSR’s PGH Brickworks at Horsley Park as a burner operator/kiln operator.

  1. In about May 2004 Mr Jong suffered an injury to his right shoulder at work. Following treatment, he resumed employment with CSR on ‘selected duties’ whereby use of his right arm and shoulder was restricted.

  1. Mr Jong claimed that in about September 2006 he was required to resume ‘normal duties’. These duties included pushing and pulling of carts in and out of kilns. The carts weighed approximately 70 kilograms.

  1. Mr Jong claimed that, in order to protect his right shoulder, he would push the carts mainly using his left leg. Mr Jong claimed that on 16 December 2006 whilst at work he felt severe pain in his left hip, back and left foot.

  1. He consulted his general practitioner, Dr So, remained at work until 19 December 2006 and then took holidays.

Continue reading CSR Limited v Jong

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
CSR Limited v Jong [2008] NSWWCCPD 69
Case
[2008] NSWWCCPD 69
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSR Limited appealed a decision of the Arbitrator that varied a decision of the Review Panel in relation to weekly benefits compensation. The Arbitrator had found that the Applicant was entitled to weekly benefits compensation for the period between 28 May 2007 and 27 May 2008, and that the Respondent was entitled to have his claim amended to include a claim for weekly benefits compensation for the period after 27 May 2008. The primary issue before the court was whether the Arbitrator's decision was correct and whether the evidence was adequate to support the findings of injury and incapacity. The court also considered whether the Arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for his decision, and whether the decision to permit an amendment of the claim was appropriate.

The court found that the Arbitrator's decision was incorrect in that it did not provide adequate reasons for his findings, and that the evidence was not adequate to support the findings of injury and incapacity. The court held that the Arbitrator had failed to adequately consider the impact of the video evidence, and that his reasons were insufficient to enable the parties to understand the basis of his decision. The court also held that the decision to permit an amendment of the claim was inappropriate as it had the effect of extending the period for which the Respondent was entitled to claim weekly benefits compensation. The court found that the decision should be remitted to the Arbitrator at first instance for the determination of the Respondent's entitlements to weekly compensation (if any) after 27 May 2008.

The court revoked the decision of the Arbitrator and made a new decision in its place. The Respondent was to pay the Applicant weekly benefits compensation for the period between 28 May 2007 and 27 May 2008, and the matter was remitted to the Arbitrator at first instance for the determination of the Respondent's entitlements to weekly compensation (if any) after 27 May 2008. The Appellant, CSR, was to pay 80% of the Respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The decision of the Arbitrator dated 5 March 2008 is revoked and the following decision made in its place.

(a) The Respondent is to pay the Applicant weekly benefits compensation pursuant to section 38 of the 1987 Act as follows:

(i) From 28 May 2007 at the

rate of $568.50 per week for a period of 26 weeks to 27 November 2007; and

(ii)From 28 November 2007 to 27 May 2008 at the rate of $568.50per week.

(b) The Respondent to pay the

Applicant’s section 60 expenses.

(c) The Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

(2) The matter is remitted to the Arbitrator at first instance for the determination of the Applicant’s entitlements to weekly compensation (if any) after 27 May 2008.

(3) The Appellant, CSR, is to pay 80% of the Respondent, Mr Jong’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.