Legal Research
Cases
Haq v Dodgshun

Haq v Dodgshun

Case [2015] VSC 450 2 September 2015

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Specific Performance

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2015 00498

ABDUL HAQ	Plaintiff
v
DR CATHERINE DODGSHUN and OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 AUGUST 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 SEPTEMBER 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HAQ v DODGSHUN & ORS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 450

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Accident compensation – Medical Panel – Opinion as to capacity for work – Suitable employment – Whether panel failed to give consideration to relevant matters – Whether panel’s statement of reasons inadequate – Application dismissed – ss 3, 302, 303, 304, 307, 313, Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G Wicks and Mr MA Belmar Salas	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
For the fifth and sixth Defendants	Mr MF Fleming QC and Ms FC Spencer	Hall & Wilcox Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Background

By originating motion filed 22 December 2014, the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of certiorari, quashing the opinion of a medical panel comprised by the first to fourth defendants of 27 October 2014. Further, the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of mandamus, that the medical questions considered by the medical panel be referred to a differently constituted medical panel, and determined according to law.

The plaintiff commenced working for the fifth defendant (the employer) in around May 2004, performing work which involved lifting and manual handling. On 21 April 2005, the plaintiff claimed worker’s compensation for an injury/condition described as ‘severe pain in neck/back of left shoulder and left hand’. His claim for compensation was accepted, and he commenced receiving benefits.

The plaintiff ceased work in 2008 when his position was made redundant, and has not worked since. On 23 December 2012, he underwent a two level cervical discectomy and fusion. On 12 February 2014, the plaintiff was notified that his weekly compensation payouts would cease on 24 May 2014, because weekly payments had been paid to him for a period of 130 weeks and he had a current work capacity; or alternatively, he had no current work capacity, but that situation was not likely to continue indefinitely.

On 25 July 2014, the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service referred several medical questions to a medical panel. The plaintiff was examined by the medical panel, comprised by a general practitioner, a rheumatologist, a neurosurgeon, and a psychiatrist. On 27 October 2014, the medical panel issued its Certificate of Opinion in which the referred questions were answered as follows:

Question 1: What is the nature of Mr Haq’s medical condition (including any sequelae) relevant to the claimed injury?
Answer: In the Panel’s opinion, the worker is suffering residual dysfunction of the cervical spine without current clinical signs of radiculopathy following a disc prolapse with left C7 radiculopathy, treated surgically, and a mild, chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, relevant to the claimed injury.
Question 2: Does…

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 Haq v Dodgshun

Details

AGLC: Haq v Dodgshun [2015] VSC 450
Case: [2015] VSC 450
Decision Date: 2 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Haq v Dodgshun, the applicant, Haq, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, Dodgshun, who was a member of a Medical Panel under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). The dispute centred around the Panel's assessment of Haq's capacity for work following an injury. Haq contended that the Panel did not adequately consider relevant matters in making its decision and that the Panel's statement of reasons was insufficient. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Panel failed to give proper consideration to all relevant matters in assessing Haq's capacity for work, and whether the Panel's statement of reasons was inadequate. The court had to determine if the Panel's decision was legally sound and whether the reasons provided were sufficient for a meaningful review. The court also had to consider the statutory framework provided by the Act in reaching its decision.

The court found that the Panel did not fail to consider relevant matters in its assessment, as the Panel had examined the medical evidence and reports provided. The court held that the Panel's statement of reasons, while not perfect, was sufficient for the purposes of judicial review. The court concluded that the Panel's decision was not flawed and dismissed the application for judicial review. The court found that the Panel's assessment was within the scope of its authority under the Act and that the reasons provided were adequate for the purposes of review.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the Panel remained in place. The court also found that the Panel's decision was not flawed and that the reasons provided were sufficient for the purposes of review. The court emphasised the importance of the Panel's role in assessing the capacity for work of injured workers and the need for adequate reasons to support its decisions.

Orders