Haidari v Victorian WorkCover Authority - [2023] VSC 522

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 02798

MOHAMMAD HAIDARI	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY (and others according to the Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Niall JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 August 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Haidari v Victorian WorkCover Authority
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 522

---

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Judicial review of medical panel decision – Whether medical panel gave adequate reasons for opinion – Conclusion as to work capacity flowed naturally from findings of fact in respect of participation in daily life – Different conclusion to previous medical panel clearly explained – Whether medical panel took into account irrelevant considerations – Errors of fact not established – Even if errors of fact established would not demonstrate medical panel took into account irrelevant considerations – Proceeding dismissed.

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, s 313.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr KP Hanscombe SC with Ms K Bowshell	Zaparas Lawyers
For the First Defendant	Mr MF Fleming KC with Ms S Gold	IDP Lawyers
For the Second to Seventh Defendants	No appearance	DLA Piper Australia

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff has made a claim for compensation under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (‘the WIRC Act’) in respect of an alleged workplace injury that is said to have occurred in January 2016 in the course of his employment as a plasterer. Pursuant to the WIRC Act a number of ‘medical questions’ were referred to a medical panel (‘the Panel’). The plaintiff, unhappy with the answers that were given, seeks judicial review on two grounds, which he contends demonstrate jurisdictional error[1] entitling him to relief in the nature of certiorari.
[1]And perhaps, error of law on the face of the record.

The relevant medical questions and the answers given by the Panel are as follows:

Question 3In any, and if so what period from September 2016 to the date of the Medical Panel examination did the plaintiff have:
(a) a current work capacity;
(b) no current work capacity?

Answer: In the Panel’s opinion, from 5 September 2016 to the date of the Medical Panel examination the plaintiff:
(a) had a current work capacity;
(b) did not have no current work capacity.

Question 4 As at the date of the Medical Panel’s assessment, does the Plaintiff have no current work capacity, and is that likely to continue indefinitely?
Answer: In the Panel’s opinion, as at the date of the Medical Panel examination the plaintiff:
(a) has a current work capacity;
(b) does not have no current work capacity.

The Panel was required to provide reasons for its opinion pursuant to a duty imposed on it by s 313 of the WIRC Act. In purported compliance with that obligation, on 25 May 2022, the Panel published its reasons for opinion (‘Reasons’).

The two grounds raised by the plaintiff are as…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Haidari v Victorian WorkCover Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] VSC 522
Decision Date: 5 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Haidari v Victorian WorkCover Authority, the applicant, Haidari, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Victorian WorkCover Authority. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the reasons provided by the medical panel for their opinion on the applicant's work capacity. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the medical panel provided adequate reasons for their opinion on the applicant's work capacity. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the conclusion regarding the applicant's work capacity flowed naturally from the findings of fact concerning his participation in daily life. Another issue was whether the medical panel considered irrelevant factors in reaching their conclusion, and if so, whether this would render the decision reviewable.

The court found that the medical panel's conclusion on the applicant's work capacity was logically derived from their findings of fact. It was determined that the panel's opinion was not arbitrary but rather flowed naturally from the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court held that even if there were errors of fact, these would not necessarily indicate that the panel had considered irrelevant considerations. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed, and the decision of the medical panel was upheld.

The court ordered that the proceeding be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant.

Orders