Golden City Support Services v Forrest - [2021] VSC 582

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 04095

GOLDEN CITY SUPPORT SERVICES INC	Plaintiff
v
DEBRA FORREST	First Defendant
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR EVANGE ROMAS	Second Defendant
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ANDREW HARDIDGE	Third Defendant
DOCTOR ROBERT SHIELDS	Fourth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MOORE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 October 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Golden City Support Services v Forrest
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 582

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of a Medical Panel – Left foot soft tissue injury and chronic pain syndrome are accepted injuries and left ankle is rejected injury – Panel found left ankle dysfunction relevant to accepted injury and assessed impairment – Whether panel found a separate injury of left ankle – Whether panel failed to accord plaintiff procedural fairness – Whether panel took into account irrelevant considerations – Whether panel failed to assess impairment in accordance with the Guides – Whether panel gave adequate statement of reasons – Panel assessed permanent impairment by reference only to accepted injury – Identification of impairment of ankle not identification of separate injury of ankle – No jurisdictional errors established – Accident Compensation Act 1985 ss 98C, 104B, 91 – Linfox Transport (Aust) Pty Ltd v Toohey [2004] VSCA 233.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	M Fleming QC with S Gold	Hall & Wilcox
For the First Defendant	R Kumar	Arnold Dallas & McPherson
For the Second to Fourth Defendants	No appearance	DLA Piper

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and background

On 10 March 2014, the first defendant (the worker) suffered an injury at work while employed by the plaintiff (the employer) as a disability support worker. In a worker’s injury claim form, she described the injury as ‘soft tissue injury – left foot’. Liability for the claim was accepted.[1]
[1]On 11 August 2014, the worker’s weekly payments were terminated on the basis that she was no longer incapacitated for work. The worker disputed the termination of her weekly payments. As part of the resolution of that dispute, a conciliation officer referred certain questions to a medical panel on 12 March 2015. The medical panel opined that the worker had suffered a ‘soft tissue injury to her left foot’ at work which had resolved with a sequelae of a chronic pain syndrome and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The medical panel found that the worker had a current incapacity for work.

On 27 September 2018, the worker made a claim for impairment benefits under s 98C of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (the ACA) in relation to the injuries she sustained on 10 March 2014. She described a number of injuries in her claim including injury to her left foot, injury to her left ankle and chronic pain syndrome.

The authorised agent for the Victorian WorkCover Authority and the employer’s insurer (the agent) obtained an opinion dated 6 February…

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 Golden City Support Services v Forrest

Details

AGLC: Golden City Support Services v Forrest [2021] VSC 582
Case: [2021] VSC 582
Decision Date: 15 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Golden City Support Services, the insurer, sought judicial review of a decision of a Medical Panel concerning an injury sustained by Mr Forrest, an employee, while performing his duties. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around the Panel’s assessment of Mr Forrest’s injuries and the impairment resulting from those injuries. The Panel accepted the injuries of a left foot soft tissue injury and chronic pain syndrome, but rejected the left ankle as an injury. The Panel also found the left ankle dysfunction to be relevant to the accepted injury and assessed the impairment accordingly.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Panel had correctly identified the injuries, whether it had accorded procedural fairness to the plaintiff, and if it had assessed impairment in accordance with the statutory guidelines. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the Panel had taken into account irrelevant considerations, provided adequate reasons for its decisions, and properly assessed the impairment of the left ankle. The insurer argued that the Panel had failed to properly identify the injuries and had not assessed the impairment in accordance with the Guides.

The court found that the Panel had not erred in identifying the left ankle dysfunction as relevant to the accepted injury, nor had it found the left ankle to be a separate injury. The court further held that the Panel had not failed to accord procedural fairness or taken into account irrelevant considerations. The Panel had also provided an adequate statement of reasons, and the assessment of permanent impairment was correctly based only on the accepted injury. The court concluded that the Panel’s assessment of the left ankle did not constitute an identification of a separate injury of the ankle. Consequently, the insurer’s application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders