Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 089

PARTIES:

NATALIE JOY HART

(Plaintiff)

v  

CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LTD

(Defendant)

FILE NO:

S327/2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

DELIVERED ON:

26^th of April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATES:

1-2 February 2005

JUDGE:

Dutney J

ORDERS:

Judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $307,883.30.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURY – quantum only – economic loss – where plaintiff now earns more then pre accident

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (QLD), s315

COUNSEL:

Mr G. F. Crow for the Plaintiff

Mr W. D. P. Campbell for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

McKays Solicitors for the Plaintiff

Bruce Thompson Lawyers for the Defendant

1. Natalie Joy Hart was injured on 28 September 2001 while working as a meatpacker at Consolidated Meat Group’s (CMG) Lakes Creek meatworks in Rockhampton.  Boxes of meat being lifted by a forklift fell onto her head rendering her unconscious.  Ms Hart was 25 years old when she was injured.  She was born on 23 August 1976.

2. Liability was not in issue.

3. The medical imaging undertaken subsequently did not disclose any bony injury although Dr White opined that the forms of inquiry undertaken would not necessarily reveal an intradiscal disruption.  On balance I accept that Ms Hart suffered a musculo-ligamentous neck injury commonly called a “whiplash”.

4. Ms Hart was treated conservatively, taking analgesics and anti inflammatory medication (Nurofen) to relieve pain.

5. Ms Hart attended Dr Thomas, an orthopaedic surgeon engaged by CMG Self Insurance, during her initial rehabilitation.  Three reports were tendered.  In the first report dated 24 October 2001, Dr Thomas reported that Ms Hart was in obvious distress and unable to return to work.  Three weeks later on 13 December 2001, he reported that she was progressing satisfactorily but that she should be reviewed if there was no further progress within two months.  In his final report of 6 February 2002, he recorded that Ms Hart had returned to work and was no longer suffering headaches but still had neck and shoulder soreness.  She needed assistance with household chores.  She was sleeping but occasionally had trouble lying on her right hand side.  Dr Thomas regarded her disability at that time as minimal and recommended that she return to work. 

6. While no objectively detectable abnormality can be found, Ms Hart still complains of consistent neck pain and headache.  Having regard to what I later say about Ms Hart’s history since the incident and my impressions of her, I accept that the complaints are genuine.  It is well recognised that even soft tissue injury can result in chronic symptoms in some patients.[1]  The inconsistency between the symptoms Ms Hart now complains of and Dr Thomas’ last report is explicable by reason of the fact that Ms Hart was performing only light duties at the time of the report.  The history which follows shows that whenever Ms Hart commences reasonably heavy work she suffers increased symptoms.  Conversely, when that…