Gulifa v Kotsios - [2023] VSC 546

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 00779

ADAM GULIFA	Plaintiff
v
DR CHRISTINE KOTSIOS & ORS	Defendants
(according to the attached Schedule)

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 September 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Gulifa v Kotsios & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 546

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of medical panel – ‘Medical condition’ of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine – ‘Non-specific low back pain’ – Panel’s observations for ‘non-expert reader’ – Whether panel erred in failing to provide adequate reasons – Whether panel erred in failing to give genuine consideration to a fundamental issue – Wingfoot Australia Partners v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 and Victorian Workcover Authority v Putrus [2023] VSCA 28 considered – Proceeding dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	PA Czarnota R Heffernan	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
For the First to Fifth Defendants	No appearance	DLA Piper
For the Sixth Defendant	RD Kumar	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

The plaintiff was born on 30 June 1981 and is presently 42 years old.

After completing year 11 of secondary school, the plaintiff commenced working in the building and construction industry as a sub-contractor. He worked in various roles including as a plasterer, labourer, renderer, concreter and graffiti removalist.

In November 2009, the plaintiff sustained a low back injury while using a jackhammer. He had back pain and pain radiating down his right leg, but recovered quickly with no specific treatment.

In April 2016, the plaintiff commenced employment with Better Scaffolding & Truck Hire Company Pty Ltd as a full-time labourer. His duties included setting up scaffolding, steel fixing, concreting and plastering, as well as moving panels, frames, cement sheet, doors and windows.

For the purposes of the referral of ‘medical questions’ for the determination of a medical panel, it was agreed that the plaintiff suffered injury to the lumbar spine in the course of his employment ‘up to and including 22 August 2017’.[1] The following account of events was later recorded –

The plaintiff … attributed his low back injury to unloading a container of heavy double-glazed windows. About two weeks later he was moving heavy panes of glass up a staircase at a school jobsite in Donvale. He said there was no mobile crane to get the windows up the stairs. The glaziers showed up and two windows were required on Level 1. During the lift he had to do a 180º turn. That night he had severe low back pain.[2]

[1]Court Book (‘CB’) 54.

[2]CB26.

The plaintiff ceased work on 23 August 2017. He recounted back and right leg pain and had an MRI scan of his low back. He consulted a spinal surgeon who identified L4/5 disc injury, but recommended non-operative treatment.

The plaintiff was given pain medication and underwent supervised rehabilitation and pain management. He reported that in…

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 Gulifa v Kotsios

Details

AGLC: Gulifa v Kotsios [2023] VSC 546
Case: [2023] VSC 546
Decision Date: 13 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gulifa v Kotsios was an appeal concerning the validity of a decision by a medical panel regarding the plaintiff’s lumbar spine condition. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the panel's opinion, arguing that it was flawed for several reasons, including a failure to provide adequate reasons and a failure to genuinely consider a fundamental issue. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issues before the court were whether the panel had erred in not providing adequate reasons for their conclusions and whether the panel had genuinely considered the fundamental issue of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine condition.

The court examined the reasoning of the panel and assessed whether the panel had provided sufficient justification for their findings. The court also considered if the panel had genuinely considered the fundamental issue of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine condition. In reaching its decision, the court referenced Wingfoot Australia Partners v Kocak and Victorian Workcover Authority v Putrus, which provide guidance on the standards for reasons in administrative law decisions and the need for genuine consideration of fundamental issues. The court concluded that the panel had adequately addressed the issues and provided sufficient reasons for their conclusions. The court found that the panel had genuinely considered the fundamental issue of the plaintiff’s lumbar spine condition and that there was no error in the panel’s decision.

As a result, the court dismissed the proceeding, upholding the panel’s decision. The court’s decision was grounded in the legal principles that guide judicial review of administrative decisions, focusing on the adequacy of reasons and the genuine consideration of fundamental issues. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough and reasoned decision-making in administrative contexts, particularly in matters involving medical assessments.

Orders