1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 30 September 2016 is confirmed.
INTRODUCTION
The appellant worker challenges the Arbitrator’s factual finding that he did not sustain an injury to his left elbow arising out of or in the course of employment on 3 September 2014, in circumstances where the respondent employer accepted liability for injury to the neck and both shoulders arising from the same incident.
For the reasons explained in this decision, the appeal is unsuccessful.
BACKGROUND
From 2014, the appellant worker, Mathew Davis, worked as a hose assembler for the respondent employer, Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd.
On 3 September 2014, Mr Davis was moving large hydraulic hoses by hand when he suffered an injury in the course of his employment. He pleaded injury to his neck, shoulders, and left forearm/elbow. The respondent accepted liability for Mr Davis’ injury to his neck and shoulders.
On 9 September 2015, the respondent’s insurer, Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, issued a notice pursuant to s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 (the 1998 Act) declining liability for injury to the left elbow. The insurer claimed that Mr Davis had not sustained a workplace injury to his left elbow, relying upon the medical certificates issued by Dr Sengordon Ramachandra, general practitioner, and the medical report of Dr Evan Jones, orthopaedic surgeon, dated 3 July 2015.
On 19 September 2016, the matter proceeded to conciliation/arbitration proceedings before Arbitrator Capel to determine the issue of injury to the left elbow, following which the matter was reserved.
On 30 September 2016, the Arbitrator issued a Certificate of Determination in favour of Mr Davis in respect of injury to the shoulders arising out of or in the course of his employment on 3 September 2014. However, the Arbitrator found that Mr Davis did not sustain an injury to his left elbow arising out of or in the course of his employment on 3 September 2014.
Mr Davis appeals the Arbitrator’s decision in respect of the injury to the left elbow.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
There is no issue that the threshold requirements of s 352(3) of the 1998 Act as to the quantum of compensation in issue on appeal have been satisfied.
The appeal was lodged within 28 days of the Arbitrator’s decision in compliance with s 352(4) of the 1998 Act.
ON THE PAPERS
Section 354(6)…
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 Davis v Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Davis v Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 5
Case
[2017] NSWWCCPD 5
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Davis v Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd involved an appeal against an arbitrator's decision made in the context of a workers' compensation claim. Davis, the appellant, was employed by Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred around the identification and correction of an error in the compensation amount awarded by the arbitrator, with Davis arguing that the amount was insufficient. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of Queensland.
The primary legal issue was whether the Arbitrator had the authority to correct an error in the quantum of compensation awarded under section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Davis contended that the Arbitrator had not properly considered the weight of the evidence presented, particularly regarding the impact of his injuries on his capacity to work. Conversely, Ryco Hydraulics Pty Ltd argued that the Arbitrator's decision should be upheld as it was within the statutory powers granted.
The court examined the statutory framework and the nature of the error identified. It found that the Arbitrator's decision to correct the compensation amount was in line with the statutory provisions, and that the Arbitrator had appropriately considered the evidence. The weight of the evidence supported the Arbitrator's conclusion that the compensation awarded was adequate. The court confirmed that the Arbitrator had the necessary authority under the Act to rectify the error in the compensation amount.
The court confirmed the Arbitrator's determination of 30 September 2016, affirming that the Arbitrator's decision to correct the error in the compensation amount was valid and appropriately aligned with the statutory framework. The appeal was dismissed, and the original compensation amount was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 30 September 2016 is confirmed.