Damchef v Tridonic Atco Manufacturing Pty Ltd and VWA

[2010] VCC 1967

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA (Un) Revised

(Not) Restricted

AT WARRNAMBOOL
CIVIL DIVISION

SERIOUS INJURY

Case No. CI-10-00852

ALEXANDER DAMCHEF	Plaintiff
v
TRIDONIC ATCO MANUFACTURING PTY LTD &	Defendants
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE COHEN
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:	11 November 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 December 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Damchef v Tridonic Atco Manufacturing Pty Ltd & VWA
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VCC 1967

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

---

Catchwords: Serious injury application – s.134AB Accident Compensation Act 1985; injury to right shoulder without surgery; whether “serious injury” as to pain and suffering.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr Collis QC with	Ellis Palmos & Co
Mr Stiffe
For the Defendants	Ms Forbes	Hall & Willcox
HER HONOUR:

1 Mr Alexander Damchef sustained injury to his right shoulder in approximately March 2006 in the course of his employment with Tridonic Atco Manufacturing Pty Ltd. He applies for leave to bring proceedings for damages for that injury, and to obtain leave he must satisfy the court that he suffered a “serious injury” under the definitions and restrictions imposed by s.134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the Act”). He relies on part (a) of the definition of serious injury, claiming to have suffered permanent serious impairment of the function of his right shoulder. His application is limited to pain and suffering damages.

2          The defendants do not dispute that the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury to his right shoulder during his employment in about early March 2006. They argue that the injury does not meet the test of being “serious” in that the permanent consequences to the plaintiff cannot fairly be described as being “more than significant or marked” and “at least very considerable”[1] when judged by comparison with other cases in the range of possible impairments of a body function.[2]

[1] S.134AB(38)(c)

[2] S.134AB(38)(b)

3          The evidence consisted of the documents set out in the attached schedule, and the oral evidence of Mr Damchef who was required for cross-examination.

Plaintiff’s background

4          Mr Damchef is now aged 60. He does not describe his early life or education. I note that he speaks English well, and that his work history has been largely in factories.

5          He lives with his wife, and they have two adult children who now live independently.

6          For more than 20 years Mr Damchef worked for the first defendant, commencing as a factory labourer, but soon became and remained a quality controller. That job required him to take samples of product, test them, enter the results on specification sheets and then inform operators if an adjustment was required for the components. In addition, it was common for him to be directed by his supervisor to relieve a machine operator during an operator’s lunch or other break.

7          The plaintiff says, and I accept that prior to March 2006 he had not previously injured his right shoulder and had full movement of it. There is no direct evidence as to his general state of health prior to the injury in question, but in his mid-fifties at the time I infer that he had no medical condition that affected his ability to carry out his work duties which as a quality controller were relatively light physically, but included some heavy lifting and manoeuvring when relieving a machine operator. He says, and I accept, that he was a keen handyman, and from that I infer that he had no significant medical problems with carrying out such activities.

Findings as to the injury, and following events

8          One lunchtime at approximately the beginning of March 2006, when relieving a machine operator, Mr Damchef was lifting steel lamination cylinders to load them into the machine when he heard and felt a tearing in both of his shoulders. He describes the cylinders as coming up to his armpit in height, being about 1½ inches in diameter, and very heavy. He was using his right dominant hand to support most of the weight. He immediately experienced pain in both shoulders, ceased the task and reported the incident to his supervisor who directed him not to lift any cylinders after that. He did, however, continue with his quality control duties and did not immediately take time off work.

9          The pain in his left shoulder resolved over the following weeks, but the right shoulder did not, and on 6 April 2006 he consulted his then general practitioner, Dr Kee Wong, at Greenbrook Medical Centre in Epping. He reported continuing pain in his right shoulder and upper arm for about a month, which had originally been on both sides but the left had cleared by then, and he said it was from lifting at work. On examination there was tenderness at the tip of the right shoulder and upper arm, and pain on abduction of more than 90 degrees. He was referred for an ultrasound which was performed on 7 April 2006, and reported as showing a focal tear in the supraspinatus tendon measuring 6.4 millimetres and adjacent to the biceps tendon.

10        Dr Wong noted on 11 April 2006 that the plaintiff had pain on lifting his right arm high, but not at rest, and wrote a letter “to whom it may concern” that Mr Damchef needed to avoid any heavy lifting or lifting above shoulder height with his right arm until it healed.[3]

[3]             Exhibit B

11        The plaintiff’s right shoulder had not improved by August 2006, and on 18 August he returned to Dr Wong complaining that his normal work did not involve any lifting but he had been asked to lift at times causing pain in the right shoulder. He was referred for another ultrasound of his right shoulder, which was reported as showing a partial intra-substance tear of the supraspinatus tendon, extending over seven millimetres. There was limited external rotation on examination of the subcapsularis tendon, reported as consistent with adhesive capsulitis. The subdeltoid bursa was thickened, consistent with chronic bursitis, but there was no impingement.[4]

[4]             Exhibit C, ultrasound report of 12/9/06

12        A report from Dr Wong[5] states that the plaintiff indicated that he was not keen on local injection or surgery so no further treatment was given. The plaintiff disputes that any such treatment was discussed. He says that when he returned to the doctor’s surgery after the second ultrasound, he was in fact seen by Dr Wong’s sister, also a Dr Wong, who told him the result, but said that he would just have to put up with it because there was no treatment to recommend. He says that he accepted that advice, and that is the reason that he did not seek out any further treatment, including not reporting ongoing pain to (either) Dr Wong notwithstanding that he continued to attend that surgery for approximately another year.

[5]             Exhibit B, 27 April 2009

13        Mr Damchef says that he continued to experience pain in his right shoulder, for which he took non-prescription analgesics, mainly Advil or else Panadol, sometimes up to eight tablets a day. He also avoided activities that caused his right shoulder to be painful, including lifting the right arm above shoulder height, reaching movements, lifting weights, or activities putting pressure on his right shoulder such as hammering (his hobby being carpentry).

14        My impression of the plaintiff as he gave oral evidence was that he was genuinely trying to tell the truth, and was not exaggerating or embellishing his condition. I accept his explanation of being told (or at least believing) that he would have to put up with it as why he did not continue to report shoulder pain to either Dr Wong.

15        In January 2008 the plaintiff started attending a different general practitioner, Dr Pauline Pahtsivanidis, of Lorne Street Medical Centre. He says, and I accept, that this change of doctors was because Dr Pahtsividis was his wife’s general practitioner, and it was convenient to go to her after Dr Wong had moved his surgery.

16        On 3 January 2008, Mr Damchef first consulted Dr Pahtsivinidis, and gave an outline of his overall medical conditions, including right shoulder pain for which he said he had been treated by his previous general practitioner. He also complained of pain in his back, in particular the thoracic area, and as the complaint of mid-thoracic back pain persisted on his subsequent visits in mid- January 2008, Dr Pahtsivanidis ordered an x-ray of his thoracic and lumbar spines, which she states revealed wedging of the mid to lower thoracic spine vertebrae of 20 per cent, the T9 being most affected, and which she also describes as evidence of crush fractures.[6]

[6]             Exhibit D, report of 20/4/09

17        Dr Pahtsivanidis noted that Mr Damchef was presenting by early 2009 with signs of depression and anxiety. She referred him to a psychiatrist, Dr Piperoglou, but he was reluctant and did not attend. She also referred him to an orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Roger Sutherland, who examined him in December 2009. Mr Sutherland obtained an up-to-date x-ray and ultrasound and, as the latter showed a small tear in the supraspinatus with an associated bursitis, he discussed a shoulder injection, but noted that the patient wished to speak with his general practitioner before making a decision. Dr Pahtsivanidis notes that the patient told her that Mr Sutherland recommended injection of cortisone and also an operation.

18        Dr Pahtsivanidis reports that on 7/4/10 Mr Damchef told her that Wrok cover did not approve of the steroid injection, and Mr Sutherland was still of the opinion that only an operation would fix his right shoulder problem. However, on 28 April 2010, Mr Damchef underwent a steroid injection in his right shoulder, under ultrasound guidance. He told his general practitioner (and the court) that it did not make much difference.

19        He has continued to complain to Dr Pahtsivanidis of right shoulder pain and restriction of movement, causing difficulty with lifting weights and elevating his arm above shoulder level. He also continues to complain to her of back pain, causing difficulty bending and twisting the spine, as well as difficulty lifting weights and prolonged standing. He has continued to complain of difficulty sleeping due to his back and shoulder pain and, and to have feelings of depression. His ongoing treatment has been physiotherapy and analgesics and anti-inflammatories, and Dr Pahtsivanidis’s opinion is that he will eventually need an operation on his right shoulder. Her view was that he is unable to work due to difficulty performing duties requiring lifting weights, any work above shoulder height and work requiring bending and prolonged standing or sitting, and, being right-hand dominant, his possibilities are further limited[7].

[7]             Exhibit D

Specialist opinion

20        Mr Roger Sutherland, orthopaedic surgeon, saw Mr Damchef, on the referral of Dr Pahtsivanidis, in December 2009. On examination he found decreased movement in most planes, but, in particular, the plaintiff was not able to actively flex or abduct beyond 90 degrees. He ordered repeat ultrasound and shoulder x-ray. He found the x-ray normal and the ultrasound showing a small tear in the supraspinatus with an associated bursitis. He discussed treatment options, including injections, but noted that Mr Damchef wanted to wait, and, at the time of his last report[8], had not seen him again and had no further knowledge of his current situation. His view was that, although rotator cuff tears are common and may be asymptomatic, accepting from Mr Damchef that he had no prior shoulder problems, it was reasonable to ascribe his current symptoms to the injury which either caused or aggravated a pre- existing cuff tear. His reports do not specifically mention whether surgery was discussed as an option or recommended.

[8]             Exhibit E, 26/6/2010

21        Mr Gerald Moran, orthopaedic surgeon, examined the plaintiff for the defendant in June 2009 for the purpose of an impairment assessment[9]. He had available only the claim form and letter and report[10] from Dr Wong. He had no information or history of back pain. Symptoms reported to him were intermittent right shoulder pain which was worse when he lifts his right arm, restricted right shoulder movement, but no left shoulder pain or restricted movement, and that he took about ten Panadol a week. On physical examination there was some restriction of movement, abduction to 90 degrees, adduction 20 degrees, extension 40 degrees[11]. Mr Moran confirmed that Mr Damchef had suffered a tear of the supraspinatus tendon of his right shoulder which arose in the course of his employment, and did not recommend any other specialist assessment.

[9]             Exhibit F

[10]           Report 20/4/09 in Exhibit D

[11]           I note that the report of physical examination ceases abruptly at foot of page 2 of report (Exhibit F), as if a page is missing, but the report pagination does not show that.

22        Mr Peter Kudelka, orthopaedic surgeon, provided a medico-legal report to the plaintiff’s solicitors in September 2009[12]. He noted the history, including that the plaintiff was on a Disability Pension, predominantly for chronic back pain, and that he takes Panadol for his shoulder and back pain but has had no physiotherapy or hydrotherapy. He complained of symptoms in the right shoulder, worse at night, and could not lie on his right side, as well as persistent back pains which vary in intensity. On examination, he found the cervical spine had global restriction of movement by approximately 50%, but no complaint of pain when those movements were carried out. The right shoulder was considerably restricted with abduction to 50 degrees, extension 10 degrees, external rotation of 30 degrees, internal rotation 60 degrees and adduction 10 degrees. The only radiology was the ultrasounds from 2006.

[12]           In Exhibit G

23        Mr Kudelka’s opinion was that the plaintiff’s right shoulder condition of his dominant arm precluded him from reaching above shoulder or head height, from lifting at that height, performing heavy lifting at any level, lifting weights in excess of five kilograms at bench level or performing repetitive lifting or manual handling with the right arm at any level. Given the plaintiff’s age, He felt those restrictions were likely to be permanent and that his right shoulder pain would persist for the foreseeable future and was related to the incident at work in March 2006. He recommended that the plaintiff be referred to an orthopaedic surgeon specialising in shoulder injuries for assessment with respect to possible future surgical repair of the damaged structure, anticipating that that would be preceded by an MRI of the shoulder. He noted that it was unusual for a general practitioner not to refer a patient to a specialist in this manner, and he had read the reports of Dr Wong of April 2009, and Dr Pahtsivanidis of 20 April 2009. He had also read the report of Mr Gerald Moran of 10 June 2009, but disagreed that he did not need any further assessment and recommended referral to a shoulder specialist.

24        It would appear that it was due to that recommendation that Dr Pahtsivanidis referred Mr Damchef to Mr Sutherland.

25        Mr Kudelka provided a further report in July 2010.[13] On examination, he still noted some limitations in movement of the right shoulder, including abduction and adduction, as well as external rotation and extension. He saw the x-ray and ultrasound of 17 December 2009, which he confirmed showed a very small tear in the supraspinatus muscle tendon and subacromial bursitis. He had read the last report of Mr Sutherland which, he said, supports the diagnosis of degenerative changes in the right shoulder rotator cuff muscle complex. His diagnosis was degenerative changes in the rotator cuff muscle of the right shoulder, and he believed that these changes would lead to permanent restriction of function of the right shoulder, and his previous views as to the likely permanent restrictions on the plaintiff’s shoulder movements were confirmed. He noted that, although the plaintiff had attended an orthopaedic surgeon and had hydrocortisone injections, at that stage arthroscopic surgery had not been suggested by the surgeon. He considered that was probably because such surgery in a patient of this age would not necessarily relieve pain nor increase function, and considered ongoing conservative palliative and supportive treatment was an acceptable alternative management program.

[13]           Exhibit G, 15 July 2010

26        Dr Kevin Fraser examined the plaintiff for the defendant in January 2010.[14] On examination, he found there was a moderate dorsal kyphosis and forward flexion of the dorsolumbar spine was somewhat restricted, although movements otherwise normal. Right shoulder movements were restricted and painful, the range being measured as abduction/adduction 90 degrees/30 degrees, flexion/extension 100 degrees/45 degrees, and internal/external rotation 80 degrees/80 degrees. He thought there was some over-reaction on physical examination. He noted the reports from ultrasounds in 2006, January 2008 and 17 December 2009.

[14]           Exhibit 2

27        Dr Fraser reported that the worker’s history was vague, particularly in respect of management of his injury, and noted that Dr Wong’s report of 27 April 2009 indicated that the worker was not keen on local injection or surgery, whereas Mr Damchef denied that Dr Wong had mentioned either. He noted the move to Dr Pahtsivanidis was in January 2008 and, from that, inferred that the plaintiff was not having any significant shoulder symptoms before or after his redundancy in March 2007. He also noted the lateness of the referral to Mr Roger Sutherland and concluded it resulted from Mr Peter Kudelka’s recommendation. Dr Fraser stated:

“I would suggest that, on the available evidence, the worker was responsible for any such delay, presumably because the shoulder wasn’t troubling him much and that he has only seen the surgeon recently because of his Workers Compensation claim.”

His overall opinion was that “maybe” he did sustain a small supraspinatus tear/mild bursitis as a result of the incident at work around March 2006, but he does not have adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, which is associated with global restrictions of shoulder movements, whereas in his case only flexion and extension were found on examination to be restricted, and he felt the relative preservation of rotary movements are also atypical for any significant rotator cuff lesion or bursitis. He considered it questionable as to whether the plaintiff had any significant ongoing disability and considered him fit for his pre-injury duties and for any other form of work not requiring lifting of over five kilograms or any overhead, rapidly repetitive or forceful use of the right arm. He did not consider any further treatment for any work-related condition was indicated, but also said that with his reluctance to consider surgery and with non-organic factors, he was not a suitable candidate for this.

28        I read Dr Fraser’s opinion as grudging and partisan in his analysis of motivation and inferences to be drawn. He alone disputes the diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis, as he says that the only restriction he found on examination was flexion and extension. Each of the surgeons who have examined the plaintiff - the treating consultant, Mr Roger Sutherland, and also Mr Gerald Moran and Mr Peter Kudelka - noted restrictions in rotation, abduction and adduction on their respective examinations, and, in my view, their consistent findings and diagnoses should be preferred. Finally, although Dr Fraser doubts that there is any ongoing disability, he does confirm the need to restrict the plaintiff’s future work to not lifting more than five kilograms or any overhead, and no rapidly repetitive or forceful use of his right arm, which would be unnecessary limitations were there not an ongoing disability in the right shoulder.

Compensable injury

29        There is no dispute that in an incident at work in about early March 2006 the plaintiff suffered injury to his right shoulder[15]. I am satisfied that this was a tear of the supraspinatus tendon in the rotator cuff, adhesive capsulitis and associated bursitis. Mr Kudelka describes the injury as degenerative changes in the rotator cuff muscle, but I am satisfied as were he and Mr Sutherland that if he had no prior right shoulder symtooms it is likely that the incident in March 2006 caused or aggravated the tear and brought on symptoms which have continued ever since.

[15]           Claim accepted and not disputed in this case.

Does the injury meet the test for “serious injury”?

30        The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the court that the consequences to the him of the injury are “permanent”, in the sense of likely to last for the foreseeable future, and “serious” in that the permanent consequences to him can fairly be described as being “more than significant or marked” and “at least very considerable”[16] when judged by comparison with other cases in the range of possible impairments of a body function.[17]

[16] S.134AB(38)(c)

[17] S.134AB(38)(b)

31        I did not consider Mr Damchef to be exaggerating or embellishing his symptoms. I accept that since the incident he has continued to experience pain and restricted movement in his right shoulder. I consider his credibility about this to be reinforced by the fact that he has since his first attendance on a doctor about this injury acknowledged that left shoulder pain which he originally felt had resolved in the first few weeks. Further, although he apparently has significant pathology in his thoracic spine, he has not sought to make that part of this claim. This differentiation in my view goes to confirm that he should be believed on the extent of his complaints about his right shoulder.

32        I find that the plaintiff is not a man who immediately seeks medical attention, nor wants extensive or intrusive medical treatment. That does not of itself mean that he does not experience pain or other discomfort. I accept his version of why he did not continually visit Dr Wong for treatment of his right shoulder, namely, that he had been told by Dr Wong’s sister that, although the ultrasound showed a tear, there was nothing that could be done for it other than taking analgesics. I also accept that his reason for changing general practitioners was not “doctor shopping”, but was simply because Dr Wong moved his surgery and he chose to then attend the same doctor’s clinic as his wife did. I note that on first consultation there he described the right shoulder pain and its chronicity, and that this was more than a year before he accepted the redundancy and ceased his employment. Moreover, Dr Pahtsivinidis did not immediately refer him for specialist opinion and that is not consistent with his move to a new general practitioner been motivated by thoughts of a compensation claim.

33        I accept that the plaintiff has pain in his shoulder on activity, although he says that it is more of a twinge when at rest, unless aggravated by activity. I accept that he has found the ongoing pain and restricted movement in his right shoulder limiting in everyday activities, particularly because it is his dominant arm, and he has learnt to protect that arm and shoulder and use his left more. I noted that throughout his time in the witness box he only gesticulated with his left hand and arm, leaving the right arm constantly still and with his right hand resting palm upwards on his thigh, which I took to be giving the shoulder some support. He complains that standing for long periods causes shoulder pain and not just back pain, in that the arm is hanging unsupported at his right side. I accept that that may cause some increase in shoulder pain, although there is no medical evidence to support that likelihood, but it I find that his thoracic spine condition is likely to be the predominant reason for limited tolerance to prolonged standing.

34        I accept that he frequently has disturbed sleep due to his right shoulder condition in that if he turns onto the shoulder it becomes painful.

35        I accept that before this injury he was a keen handyman and that carpentry and similar activity is now difficult due to his shoulder condition, as is climbing a ladder.

36        The plaintiff’s counsel called on the defendant to admit, which it did through counsel, that it had had the plaintiff under video surveillance on 8 dates this year - in April, June and July. The defendant did not seek to show any of that surveillance film, and from that I infer that it would not have assisted the defendant’s case, and did not show anything inconsistent with his own version of the nature and extent of his activities which I can more readily accept.

37        Mr Kudelka’s view is that surgery may eventuate. Dr Pahtsavinidis also says he may need surgery, but it is unclear whether that is based on her own opinion or what she states she has been told by Mr Damchef was the view of Mr Sutherland. Mr Sutherland’s letters to her, and report to the plaintiff’s solicitors, do not recommend surgery. Mr Moran did not see the need for further treatment. I also take into account that Mr Damchef was slow to agree to a steroid injection, has found such injection unhelpful, and in my view is unlikely to choose a surgical option even if it were recommended. It is therefore likely that the plaintiff’s current level of symptoms and disability will continue for the foreseeable future.

38        I take into account that in assessing the degree of impairment from an injury, the court takes into account what has been lost, but the significance of what has been lost may be informed, to an extent, by what is retained.[18]

[18] Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] VSCA 260; Stijepic v One Force Group Aust Pty Ltd

39        The fact that a plaintiff has been able to return to full-time employment does not preclude an affirmative finding of serious injury. It is simply one of the matters to be taken into account. What matters in this regard is the extent to which an area of work which the plaintiff enjoyed has been closed off to him[19].

[19]           Maxwell P in Hayden Engineering Pty Ltd v McKinnon [2010]VSCA 69 at para 15 citing Stijepic, Sabo [2009] VSCA 242; Dwyer (No 2);

40        This is a case where the plaintiff was able to continue in his pre-injury employment for as long as that employment lasted. He was made redundant about a year after the injury, but that was due to computerization or what he calls a machine taking over his job. The job as quality controller was described as relatively light in a physical sense, and apart from not relieving machine operators during their breaks he appears to have continued his long- term job without much difficulty. I accept that his employment options have theoretically been limited by his injury, because he could not now manage a job requiring overhead work or repetitive arm movements or heavy lifting, however there is no evidence of his having any such jobs in mind as a future option after redundancy. He was physically capable of training to be a security officer, which he then attempted, but says that standing for long periods caused back pain and right shoulder pain due to his arm hanging unsupported. I am not satisfied that his shoulder significantly contributed to the decision to abandon that job attempt.

41        This is a case where there has been little medical treatment, and while that will not be determinative, and may reflect either stoicism or a resignation that medicine has little to offer to relieve symptoms, it is relevant as a reflection of how the plaintiff copes with the effects of the injury. I accept that Mr Damchef regularly takes Panadol or Advil to relieve pain from both his back and neck – he says that the number depends on how bad the pain is, and is sometimes 10 a day and sometimes 10 a week. I also accept that he often wakes from his sleep if he turns onto his right shoulder, but I am not satisfied that this leads to his being significantly sleep deprived, nor that he often lies awake in pain at night. He says that if is in pain during the night he takes a further two Panadol.

42        However, I am not satisfied that the pain is constantly present if he protects the shoulder from the activities he knows aggravate it, and he says that when he is at rest his shoulder is not painful, and he would only feel a twinge. He can drive a car, but not for a whole day. As for everyday and household activities, he can certainly care for himself, and can still do pre-injury tasks, although he may find some – such as using a hammer - more difficult. He mows his lawn but less frequently.

43        I have already said that my impression of Mr Damchef is that he was not exaggerating, and gave evidence in a straightforward manner. It is my impression that he is a sensible man. I am satisfied that the injury to his right shoulder has had permanent consequences to him of pain, restriction of movement in his shoulder, and inability to perform certain movements and consequently activities without aggravating his pain. I am satisfied, however, that he has learnt to adapt to the injury by minimising activities that aggravate the shoulder pain, or by attempting them for shorter periods, such as driving or mowing the lawn.

44        Taking into account the various retained capacities as well as the activities curtailed, and the ongoing pain and sleep disturbance and its degree, while I am satisfied that these are significant for Mr Damchef, I am not satisfied that the consequences to him of the injury to his right shoulder meet the level of being fairly described as “more than significant or marked” or “at least very considerable”.

Conclusion

45        I am satisfied that Mr Damchef suffered injury to his right shoulder in about early March 2006, but am not satisfied the consequences of that injury reach the degree to satisfy the test for “serious injury”. His application will therefore be dismissed.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Application commencing on: 11 November 2010

DAMCHEF v TRIDONIC & ors (CI-10-00852)

Number and Short Description of Exhibit Submitted by

Identifying Mark Date

on Exhibit

A	Copy of Affidavit of the Plaintiff	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
dated 29 October 2009 and Original affidavit of Plaintiff dated 24 Aug 2010
B	Copy letters/reports from Dr	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
Kee Wong dated 11 April 2006, 27 April 2009
C	Radiology reports dated 7	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
April 2006, 12 Sep 2006 and 17 December 2009
D	Reports of Dr Pahtsivanidis	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
dated 20 April 2009, 7 November 2010 with progress notes
E	Report of Mr R Sutherland	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
dated 15 & 18 December 2009 and 24 June 2010
F	Report of Mr G Moran dated	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
10 June 2009
G	Reports of Mr P Kudelka	Plaintiff	11 November 2010
dated 3 Sep 2009 and 15 July 2010

H Acceptance/ Notice of Plaintiff 11 November 2010

entitlement dated 19 June

2009

Number and Short Description of Exhibit Submitted by

Identifying Mark Date

on Exhibit

1	Worker’s claim form for	Defence	11 November 2010
impairment benefits dated 23 Feb 2009
2	Report of Dr Kevin Fraser of	Defence	11 November 2010
19 January 2010
3	Documentation relating to	Defence	11 November 2010
redundancy 5 & 20 March 2007
4	Leave requests with medical	Defence	11 November 2010
certificates dated 10 April 2006 and 21 August 2006
5	Balance of progress notes of 3	Defence	11 November 2010
Jan 2008 through till 7 December 2009 of Dr Pahtsivanidis

[2009] VSCA 181