Legal Research
Cases
Grujovska v Brand

Grujovska v Brand

Case [2023] VSCA 59 22 March 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2022 0025

NATASHA GRUJOVSKA	Applicant
v
DR CAROLINE BRAND AND ORS (ACCORDING TO THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, NIALL and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 March 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 March 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 59
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2022] VSC 63 (Gorton J)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Medical panel – Workplace injury – Adequacy of reasons – Whether medical panel’s reasons adequate – Reasons not to be scrutinized over-zealously seeking to discern error from way reasons expressed – Distinction between complaint about adequacy of reasons and complaint about reasoning – No inadequacy in panel’s reasons – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Workplace Injury and Rehabilitation Act 2013, ss 274, 304 and 335.

Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 applied. Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; Dundar v Bas [2019] VSCA 315; Sidiqi v Kotsios [2021] VSCA 187, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:	Mr PA Czarnota and Ms A Tate
First to Fourth Respondents:	No appearance
Fifth Respondent:	Mr MF Fleming KC with Ms FC Spencer
Solicitors
Applicant:	Shine Lawyers
First to Fourth Respondents:	DLA Piper
Fifth Respondent	Thomson Geer Lawyers

BEACH JA
NIALL JA
KAYE JA:

In November and December 2016, Natasha Grujovska (‘the applicant’) was employed by a labour hire company, Bailey Personnel Pty Ltd (‘the fifth respondent’). She was assigned to work for DNATA Airport Services Pty Ltd as a baggage handler at Melbourne Airport. She alleges that on 11 December 2016, she was struck by a falling bag while unloading luggage from a container and, as she bent down to lift the bag, she felt lower back pain.
On 13 January 2017, the applicant lodged a WorkCover claim in respect of a ‘lower back’ injury sustained on 11 December 2016 after lifting a ’28-32 kg bag’ and turning to throw the bag onto a belt. Her claim for compensation was accepted. Since then, apart from a failed attempt to return to work for another employer in November 2017, the applicant has not engaged in employment.
In October 2019, the applicant commenced a proceeding in the County Court seeking leave to bring a claim for common law damages pursuant to s 335(2)(d) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (the ‘Act’). She relied upon injuries to her lower back, fibromyalgia syndrome and a secondary psychological injury in support of her application for leave to commence a common law proceeding.
On 2 July 2020, pursuant to s 274(1)(b) of the Act, a County Court judge referred two medical questions to a medical panel. Subsequently, a medical panel was convened comprising Dr Caroline Brand, a rheumatologist; Associate Professor Michael Murphy, a neurosurgeon; Dr Sallyann Middleton, a general practitioner; and Associate Professor Abdul Khalid, a psychiatrist.
On 21 October 2020, the medical panel provided a certificate of its opinion and a written statement…

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 Grujovska v Brand

Details

AGLC: Grujovska v Brand [2023] VSCA 59
Case: [2023] VSCA 59
Decision Date: 22 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grujovska v Brand was a matter heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which involved a dispute between the applicant, Grujovska, and the respondent, Brand, regarding the adequacy of reasons provided by a medical panel in relation to a workplace injury. The applicant sought judicial review of the panel’s decision, arguing that the reasons provided were inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the issues relevant to her claim. The respondent, Brand, maintained that the reasons provided were adequate and that the applicant's arguments were without merit.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the reasons provided by the medical panel were adequate. The court considered the distinction between a complaint about the adequacy of reasons and a complaint about the reasoning itself. It was necessary to determine whether the reasons were sufficient to allow the applicant to understand the basis for the decision and to enable meaningful judicial review. The court also examined whether the reasons were scrutinised over-zealously, seeking to discern error from the way the reasons were expressed.

The court found that the reasons provided by the medical panel were adequate and did not suffer from the defects alleged by the applicant. The court noted that reasons need not be perfect, but rather sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review. The court distinguished the applicant’s complaint about the adequacy of reasons from a complaint about the reasoning itself, emphasising that the former was a less onerous standard to meet. The court held that the reasons provided were sufficient to enable meaningful judicial review and did not contain any significant errors or omissions. As such, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

The court's final orders included the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal and the affirmation of the decision of the medical panel. The court's reasoning and outcome were influenced by the principles established in previous cases, including Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak, Soulemezis v Dudley, Dundar v Bas, and Sidiqi v Kotsios. The applicant was left with no further avenue for appeal in relation to the medical panel's decision.

Orders