He v Glemaro Pty Ltd

In the case of He v Glemaro Pty Ltd, the appellant, Ms He, sought a review of a decision made by an Arbitrator under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The primary dispute was centred on the appellant's entitlement to ongoing weekly compensation for injuries sustained during her employment. The legal issues that arose in this case primarily focused on the relevance of certain medical assessment certificates (MACs) obtained during the period following the compensable injury, the admissibility of these certificates, and the correctness of the findings made by the Arbitrator.

The court considered whether the MACs were relevant to the issues at hand, as per section 55 of the Evidence Act 1995. The appellant argued that the MACs were irrelevant because they were obtained outside the compensable period for weekly benefits. However, the Arbitrator had previously rejected this argument, asserting that the MACs were relevant to assessing the credibility of Ms He's evidence and her ongoing incapacity resulting from the injury. The court upheld the Arbitrator's decision, finding that the MACs were indeed relevant, as they contained medical opinions that could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of facts in issue, such as the nature and extent of the appellant's incapacity and the legitimacy of her complaints.

The court also addressed the appellant's argument that the MACs should not be considered because she had not been given the opportunity to cross-examine the author of the MACs. The court applied the rule in Browne v Dunn, noting that the MACs were admissible as they were reports of examinations conducted by a medical practitioner, which are generally not subject to the same rules of cross-examination as witness testimony. The court concluded that there were no errors in the Arbitrator's consideration of the MACs, and the findings based on these certificates were appropriately made.

Finally, the court confirmed the Arbitrator's determination dated 26 April 2016, which upheld the original decision denying the appellant ongoing weekly compensation beyond the initial period.