Ellis v Rantzos (t/as Rantzos Hairdressing)

In *Ellis v Rantzos (t/as Rantzos Hairdressing)*, the appellant, a hairdresser, appealed a decision concerning her claim for workers compensation. The dispute arose from an injury allegedly sustained due to a defective customer chair that was fixed too high. The primary judge had made findings regarding the appellant's condition and the extent of her non-economic loss, which the appellant sought to challenge on appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the medical evidence and, consequently, in his determination of the severity of the appellant's non-economic loss. Specifically, the court considered whether discrepancies in the histories recorded in expert medical reports justified their rejection by the trial judge and whether the judge had properly applied the principles for assessing non-economic loss under section 151G of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), which requires determining the severity as a percentage of "a most extreme case."

The court reasoned that the trial judge's approach to the medical reports, which were tendered without extensive submissions or oral evidence, was understandable given the manner in which the trial was conducted. The judge's conclusions were largely based on his assessment of the appellant herself, with the medical reports serving primarily as background information. While the judge made findings that flowed from medical assessments, such as dismissing the relevance of a protrusion at C4/5, these findings were well open on the evidence. The court noted that it would have been open to the judge to find that the evidence failed to establish an "organic basis" for the appellant's continuing complaints. The court emphasised that the assessment of non-economic loss under section 151G involves an exercise in evaluative judgment, and unless the trial judge erred in principle, an appellate court would only intervene if the conclusion reached was manifestly too low.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.