Huhtamaki Australia Pty Limited v Singh
[2009] NSWWCCPD 128
•12 October 2009
| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| CITATION: | Huhtamaki Australia Pty Limited v Singh [2009] NSWWCCPD 128 | ||||
| APPELLANT: | Huhtamaki Australia Pty Limited | ||||
| RESPONDENT: | Manjeet Singh | ||||
| INSURER: | CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-126/09 | ||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr M Oldfield | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 17 June 2009 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 12 October 2009 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Total incapacity; sections 38 and 38A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting President Bill Roche | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Lander & Rogers Lawyers | |||
| Respondent: | Turner Freeman | ||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | Paragraph two of the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 June 2009 is revoked and the following orders are made in its place: “2. That the respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker weekly compensation under section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the following rates: $361.30 per week from 17 June 2007 to 30 September 2007; $367.70 per week from 1 October 2007 to 31 March 2008; $374.90 per week from 1 April 2008 to 30 September 2008; $381.40 per week for 1 October 2008, and $280.12 per week from 2 October 2008 to date and continuing.” | ||||
| Paragraphs one, three, four and five of the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 June 2009 are confirmed. | |||||
| Each party is to pay his or its own costs of the appeal. | |||||
BACKGROUND
The worker, Mr Singh, started work with Huhtamaki Australia Pty Limited (‘Huhtamaki’) as a machine operator in August 1989. In June 2006 he developed pain and pins and needles in his right hand and forearm, which radiated into his upper arm and shoulder. He reported his symptoms and made a claim for compensation on 24 October 2006. Liability for that claim was denied in December 2006.
In an Application to Resolve a Dispute (‘the Application’) registered with the Commission on 13 January 2009, Mr Singh sought weekly compensation in the sum of $872.84 per week from 17 June 2007 to date and continuing as a result of an injury to his right fingers, hand, arm and shoulder, caused or aggravated as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment with Huhtamaki from June 2006. Mr Singh also claimed lump sum compensation in the sum of $27,500.00 in respect of a 20 percent whole person impairment together with $25,000.00 compensation for pain and suffering.
In a Reply filed on 30 January 2009, Huhtamaki disputed injury, notice, incapacity and the extent of any whole person impairment.
The Commission listed the matter for conciliation and arbitration on 14 April 2009. The matter could not be resolved and proceeded to arbitration with Mr Singh being cross-examined at length. In a reserved decision delivered on 17 June 2009, the Arbitrator found in favour of Huhtamaki in respect of the alleged injury to Mr Singh’s right shoulder, but found in favour of Mr Singh in respect of the remaining issues. The Commission issued the following Certificate of Determination on 17 June 2009:
“The Commission determines:
1. That the Applicant suffered injury to his right upper extremity, excluding the shoulder, in June 2006 and the nature and conditions of his employment between June 2006 and June 2007 to which the employment was a substantial contributing factor to that injury in accordance with s9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
2. That the Applicant was totally and partially incapacitated for employment as a result of his injury and is to be compensated by the Respondent for weekly payments as follows:
$874.84 per week from 17 June 2007 to 16 December 2007 pursuant to s36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
$367.70 per week from 17 December 2007 to 31 March 2008 pursuant to s37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
$374.90 per week from 1 April 2008 to 10 April 2008 pursuant to s37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
$698.27 per week from 11April 2008 to 1 October 2008 pursuant to s38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
$280.12 per week from 2 October 2008 to date and continuing pursuant to s40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
3. That the Respondent pays the Applicant’s s60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 medical and related expenses for the Applicant’s right upper extremity, excluding the shoulder, upon the production of accounts and/or receipts.
4. That the dispute concerning lump-sum compensation pursuant to s66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for the Applicant’s right upper extremity, excluding the shoulder, is to be referred to an Approved Medical Specialist appointed by the Registrar. The material admitted into these proceedings is to be disclosed to the Approved Medical Specialist. The assessment is to be undertaken under the whole person impairment regime with the date of injury being June 2007.5. That the Respondent pays the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”
By an appeal filed on 14 July 2009, Huhtamaki seeks leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s determination so far as it related to the award for weekly compensation for total incapacity between 17 June 2007 and 10 April 2008 and under section 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) for the period 11 April 2008 to 1 October 2008. Mr Singh has not sought leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s determination in respect of the alleged injury to his right shoulder.
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Monetary Threshold
Before proceeding to deal with an appeal the Commission must determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’).
It is not disputed that the monetary thresholds in section 352(2) are satisfied.
Time
The appeal was lodged within 28 days of the Arbitrator’s decision in compliance with section 352(4) of the 1998 Act.
I grant leave to appeal.
ON THE PAPERS
Section 354(6) of the 1998 Act provides:
“(6) If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act without holding any conference or formal hearing.”
Having regard to Practice Directions Numbers 1 and 6, the documents that are before me, and the submissions by the parties that the appeal can proceed to be determined on the basis of these documents, I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to proceed ‘on the papers’, without holding any conference or formal hearing, and that this is the appropriate course in the circumstances.
THE EVIDENCE
In 2005, Huhtamaki purchased a new “blanking” machine. A blanking machine makes cut outs (blanks) that are then made into paper cups. Mr Singh’s duties required him to intermittently replace the “roll print paper”, which weighed approximately 750 to 1000 kilograms. He was also required to constantly remove from the machine bundles of blanks weighing between two to three kilograms.
In June 2006, he developed pain and pins and needles in his right hand and forearm with pain radiating to his upper arm and shoulder. He consulted his local general practitioner, Dr Gill, on 6 June 2006 and was referred to Dr Dowla, neurologist, for assessment and nerve conduction studies. He was subsequently referred to Dr Yee, hand and wrist surgeon, and was diagnosed with right carpal tunnel syndrome.
In February 2007, Dr Yee gave Mr Singh a cortisone injection, but the pain in his arm did not improve and he had increasing difficulties with his right elbow. He was then referred to Dr Nicholas Smith who arranged for an MRI scan.
At some stage in the second half of 2006, Mr Singh’s duties were varied and his hours were reduced from 12 to six per day for four days per week. After he exhausted his accrued annual and sick leave, he returned to full-time hours on selected duties on 16 February 2007.
On 4 June 2007, Mr Singh could not cope with the pain in his right forearm and, as a result, he resigned, though his last day of work was not until 16 June 2007. At the time of his resignation he made his manager, described only as “Onur”, aware that he was resigning because of his injury.
Mr Singh states that at all times since June 2007 he has done his best to secure employment by searching for suitable positions in the local paper, on the internet and by signing up with CRS.
On 1 October 2008, Mr Singh completed a security course and he commenced work as a loss prevention officer with JB Hi Fi on the following day.
Mr Singh states that he continues to experience problems and restrictions as a result of his injury and has constant pain in his right wrist, which tends to increase depending upon the type of activity he undertakes. He also has constant pain in his right elbow though the pins and needles he previously experienced ceased after the cortisone injection. He has difficulty lifting heavy items, such as a bucket of water, and has noticed that his grip strength is reduced compared to his left hand. He has trouble completing household activities such as vacuuming and mopping. Whilst he is still able to mow the lawn, he finds that the vibrations from the mower increase the pain in his elbow. He has also developed some anxiety, stress and depression as a result of his ongoing pain and restrictions. He believes that he is unfit to perform work involving heavy lifting or repetitive activities.
Medical evidence
Dr Gill provided a detailed report to Mr Singh’s solicitors on 23 March 2007 in which he set out his history, findings and opinion. Mr Singh attended on Dr Gill on several occasions in the second half of 2006 for treatment for his right hand and forearm.
On 11 January 2007, Mr Singh attended on Dr Gill with Jenny Greenfield, occupational therapist from the employer’s rehabilitation provider, for a “surgery conference”. On that occasion Mr Singh complained of numbness and swelling in his right hand and forearm. He said that he was using the machine but wasn’t doing manual work, which was difficult especially with his right hand. Although the employer was willing to reduce his manual duties, Mr Singh found it difficult to find help at work when he needed it.
On 17 February 2007, Mr Singh returned to see Dr Gill and was advised to continue at work “with restrictions at 12 hours a day”. This, presumably, is a reference to Mr Singh returning at that time to his normal hours, but not to his normal duties.
On 1 March 2007, Mr Singh returned to Dr Gill stating that he was working 12 hours a day four days a week and developing more pain in his right arm. He made a similar complaint on 7 March 2007 when he had considerable pain in his right forearm and was unable to grip with it. As a result of his pain he took panadeine forte and was drowsy and unable to walk.
On 17 March 2007, Mr Singh complained to Dr Gill that the pain in his right arm was worse. Dr Gill’s report indicates that he provided Mr Singh with a medical certificate, but he does not indicate the restrictions on that certificate.
After receiving a cortisone injection into the right carpal tunnel on 1 March 2007 from Dr Yee, Mr Singh’s tingling and numbness improved, but there was no improvement to his right forearm and shoulder pain.
Dr Gill diagnosed Mr Singh to be suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthralgia in the right wrist and stated that Mr Singh should be on restricted duties with no lifting with his right hand and reduced flexion and extension activities and pushing/pulling activities. He recommended a trial of six hours instead of the current 12 hours work per day. The prognosis was guarded.
A right elbow ultrasound and x-ray conducted on 31 May 2007 revealed findings in keeping with moderate changes of lateral epicondylitis/extensor origin tendinosis but without evidence of a tear.
Dr Yee reported to Mr Singh’s solicitors on 27 June 2007. He first saw Mr Singh on 7 November 2006 when he took a history that Mr Singh had been performing a lot of repetitive work in or around July 2006 when he noticed pain and discomfort in his right upper extremity associated with numbness in the tips of his fingers on the right side.
Dr Yee gave Mr Singh a cortisone injection in early 2007 and on 31 May 2007 Mr Singh advised that his tingling and numbness was better but he continued to have pain in his right elbow. Clinical examination suggested lateral epicondylitis. Dr Yee did not see Mr Singh after 31 May 2007. In Dr Yee’s opinion, Mr Singh’s repetitive work was a substantial contributing factor to his carpal tunnel syndrome and lateral epicondylitis.
An MRI scan of the right elbow on 6 September 2007 confirmed mild to moderate epicondylitis with a partial thickness tear together with mild to moderate tendinopathy in the long head of the biceps tendon.
Mr Singh saw Dr Drew Dixon, consultant orthopaedic surgeon, at the request of his solicitors on 24 July 2008. In his report of 29 July 2008, Dr Dixon took a history that Mr Singh’s pre-injury duties required him to repetitively lift and stack “blanks” weighing two to three kilograms. In the course of those duties he developed pain and paresthesia in his right hand and then in his right elbow and shoulder.
Dr Dixon noted that Mr Singh had difficulty working as a machine operator and eventually took time off work and used up his holiday and long service leave. He resigned in June 2007 but Dr Dixon did not record why. In respect of work he performed until his resignation, Dr Dixon noted that Mr Singh avoided using the blanking machine but still ran other machines without assistance and he had difficulty managing. After reviewing the radiological investigations and the nerve conduction studies, Dr Dixon concluded that Mr Singh had developed right carpal tunnel syndrome in 2006, which settled with a cortisone injection. He also had lateral epicondylitis for which he had an ultrasound guided cortisone injection, which did not completely resolve his symptoms of pain and reduced grip strength. Dr Dixon felt that Mr Singh’s prognosis for doing a “remunerative occupation” at the time of his examination remained guarded.
In addition to relying on Dr Gill’s report, his clinical notes have also been tendered. Whilst I do not intend to refer to the notes in detail, it is relevant that Dr Gill recorded on 8 June 2007 that Mr Singh attended and said that he was leaving work due to pain. Mr Singh attended again on 10 June 2007 when Dr Gill advised “time off and physio”. Dr Gill provided certificates certifying Mr Singh to be unfit for work from 8 June 2007 through to the last certificate in evidence, dated 5 March 2008, which certifies Mr Singh unfit from 10 March to 10 April 2008.
Huhtamaki relies on reports from Dr Stapleton, hand and plastic and reconstructive surgeon, dated 28 November 2006 and 5 December 2006. In his first report, Dr Stapleton diagnosed Mr Singh to have carpal tunnel syndrome, though only with symptoms on his right hand side. As at November 2005 Mr Singh was only working half of his normal 12 hour shifts, but his symptoms were worsening as time passed. On examination, Dr Stapleton found no signs of epicondylitis. He had no doubt that, because of the carpal tunnel syndrome, Mr Singh had trouble lifting heavy weights at work, but he did not feel that any of his complaints were related to his employment by way of causation or by way of aggravation.
THE ARBITRATOR’S REASONS
So far as is relevant to the current appeal, the Arbitrator made the following findings in his Statement of Reasons (‘Reasons’) delivered on 17 June 2009:
(a) in respect of the carpal tunnel syndrome and epicondylitis, he was satisfied on the reports, certificates and clinical notes of Dr Gill that those conditions rendered Mr Singh totally incapacitated for employment from the time he resigned in June 2007 until 10 April 2008;
(b) from 11 April 2008 to date and continuing, Mr Singh was partially incapacitated;
(c) he accepted that the period between 11 April and 1 October 2008 was “the relevant rehabilitation period obtaining the security qualifications and Mr Singh should be compensated under s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for that period” (Reasons at [5.17]), and
(d) on 2 October 2008, Mr Singh obtained a “security” position rewarding him at an average weekly rate of $592.72 per week. Deducting that figure from Mr Singh’s probable earnings but for injury gave a difference of $280.12 per week which amount was awarded under section 40 from 2 October 2008 to date and continuing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
There are two issues in dispute in the appeal. First, whether the Arbitrator erred in finding Mr Singh to be totally unfit for work from 17 June 2007 to 10 April 2008, and second, whether the Arbitrator erred in finding Mr Singh entitled to compensation under section 38 of the 1987 Act from 11 April 2008 to 1 October 2008.
SUBMISSIONS, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Ground one
It is submitted on behalf of Huhtamaki that:
(a) four days prior to being certified totally unfit by Dr Gill, Mr Singh voluntarily resigned his employment with the company with no indication as to any problems with his work duties;
(b) prior to resigning, Mr Singh had been performing suitable duties full-time since 20 February 2007;
(c) under sections 47 and 48 of the 1998 Act, Mr Singh had obligations to return to work and maintain suitable duties with his pre-injury employer. Under section 49 of the 1998 Act, the employer complied with its obligation to provide suitable employment until Mr Singh voluntarily resigned in June 2007, and
(d) there is no contemporaneous evidence of a change in Mr Singh’s circumstances in June 2007 to warrant a finding of total incapacity from 17 June 2007 until 10 April 2008. Dr Gill’s WorkCover medical certificates provide no explanation for a change in Mr Singh’s level of incapacity.
It is submitted on behalf of Mr Singh that:
(a) the Arbitrator accepted Dr Gill’s certification that he was totally unfit from 17 June 2007 until 10 April 2008;
(b) the Arbitrator’s finding of total incapacity is supported by Mr Singh’s statement and by his oral evidence at the arbitration (T 17.31);
(c) Huhtamaki has not demonstrated how the Arbitrator erred in his determination, and
(d) in the absence of any alternative evidence, Huhtamaki has failed to demonstrate that the Arbitrator has erred in his determination on this issue.
Dr Gill’s certification that Mr Singh was totally unfit for work from 8 June 2007 is inconsistent with the fact that Mr Singh continued to work up to and including 16 June 2007. That evidence alone establishes that Mr Singh’s incapacity, at that time, was not total. Whilst I have no doubt that Mr Singh’s symptoms were causing him pain and restrictions, the question is whether his condition rendered him totally unfit. Mr Singh’s statement of 9 January 2009 establishes conclusively that that was not the case. At paragraph 30 of his statement, Mr Singh said that he has at all times since June 2007 been using his best endeavours to secure employment. Clearly, he did not regard himself to be totally unfit for work and a finding of total unfitness cannot stand.
Ground two
It is submitted on behalf of Huhtamaki that:
(a) there was no basis for the Arbitrator to award weekly compensation under section 38 from 11 April 2008 until 1 October 2008 in the absence of any evidence from Mr Singh that he was seeking suitable employment, as required by section 38(4) of the 1987 Act;
(b) there is no evidence that Mr Singh complied with all of the requirements of section 38A(2) of the 1987 Act.
It is submitted on behalf of Mr Singh that:
(a) the Arbitrator accepted that the period between 11 April 2008 and 1 October 2008 “was the relevant rehabilitation period obtaining the security qualifications” and therefore Mr Singh was entitled to be compensated under section 38;
(b) the Arbitrator’s finding was consistent with Mr Singh’s evidence in his statement to the effect that he had been looking for work and had completed a security course on 1 October 2008;
(c) Mr Singh has compiled with the requirements of section 38A(2) in that he:
(i)was ready, willing and able to accept an offer of suitable employment from Huhtamaki;
(ii)Dr Gill’s report of 23 March 2007 provided support which assisted the Arbitrator in determining Mr Singh’s restrictions;
(iii)Mr Singh’s evidence in his statement showed that he was making himself available to perform suitable duties before the termination of his employment, and
(iv)Mr Singh had taken steps to obtain suitable employment and assist in his own rehabilitation by attending alternative studies and completing his security course.
Compensation is not payable under section 38 of the 1987 Act during any period unless the worker “is seeking suitable employment during that period” (emphasis added) (section 38(4)). Whether a worker is seeking suitable employment is determined in accordance with section 38A. Section 38A(2) provides:
“(2) General requirements. The worker is not to be regarded as seeking suitable employment unless:
(a) the worker is ready, willing and able to accept an offer of suitable employment from the employer, and
(b) the worker has supplied the employer (or the insurer who is liable to indemnify the employer) with a medical certificate with respect to the worker’s partial incapacity for work, being a medical certificate that is in or to the effect of a form approved by the Authority, or that is in any other form and contains information that is reasonably sufficient in the circumstances to assist in determining what is suitable employment for the worker, and
(c) the worker has requested the employer (or such an insurer) to provide suitable employment or it is apparent from the circumstances that the worker is ready, willing and able to accept an offer of suitable employment from the employer, and
(d) the worker is taking reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment from some other person.Taking reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment includes seeking or receiving rehabilitation training that is reasonably necessary to improve the worker’s employment prospects.” (emphasis added)
Notwithstanding the submissions made on behalf of Mr Singh, it is patently obvious that, during the relevant period (11 April 2008 to 1 October 2008), he has not complied with the first three subsections in section 38A(2). First, it cannot realistically be suggested that Mr Singh was ready, willing and able to accept an offer of suitable employment from his employer in circumstances where he tendered his resignation on 4 June 2007. There is no evidence that Mr Singh later changed his mind and indicated to Huhtamaki a willingness to return to work on suitable duties. Second, there is no evidence that Mr Singh supplied Huhtamaki (or the insurer) with a medical certificate in respect of his partial incapacity for work in the period from 11 April to 1 October 2008. Dr Gill’s report of 23 March 2007 clearly does not qualify: it does not cover the relevant period, is not a medical certificate and was not “supplied” to the employer or the insurer as required by section 38A(2)(b). Third, there is no evidence that Mr Singh requested Huhtamaki (or the insurer) to provide him with suitable employment during the relevant period, nor was it apparent from the circumstances of Mr Singh’s resignation that he was ready, willing and able to accept an offer of suitable employment during the relevant period. Last, whilst I accept Mr Singh’s evidence that he was taking reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment since June 2007, in order to succeed under section 38 a worker must establish all four of the preconditions set out in section 38A(2).
I have considered whether Mr Singh comes within the additional words at the end of section 38A(2), which state “Taking reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment includes seeking or receiving rehabilitation training that is reasonably necessary to improve the worker’s employment prospects.” The fact that Mr Singh completed a security course may well have established that he was taking reasonable steps to obtain suitable employment, however, there is no evidence of when he commenced that course or whether it qualified as “seeking or receiving rehabilitation training” and, in these circumstances, it was not open to make an award under section 38 from 11 April 2008 to 1 October 2008 on the basis of the security course.
The end result is that the appellant has succeeded on both grounds of appeal and the matter must be redetermined. At the arbitration, the representatives for both parties approached the case on the basis that it was a claim under section 40 of the 1987 Act. Indeed, counsel for Mr Singh expressly rejected the notion that his client was totally unfit (T 31.34) and made no submissions in support of an award under section 38. Neither party has made detailed submissions on appeal as to the appropriate award under section 40, however, having regard to the evidence and submissions made at the arbitration and having regard to the five steps in Mitchell v Central Coast Area Health Service (1997) 14 NSWCCR 526, I make the following findings. Step one, probable earnings are agreed at $872.84 per week. Step two, assessment of ability to earn in some suitable employment (section 40(2)(b)) requires a consideration of Mr Singh’s circumstances and section 43A of the 1987 Act. Mr Singh is incapacitated for heavy or repetitive work requiring the use of his right upper limb and is therefore unfit for his pre-injury employment. He is now 62 years of age and came to Australia from Malaysia in 1986 and has only ever been employed in this country in either production work or as a machine operator. He has no tertiary qualifications. In these circumstances, doing the best I can on the limited evidence available, I assess Mr Singh’s ability to earn in the labour market reasonably accessible to him to be $400.00 per week in light process work not involving heavy or repetitive use of his right upper limb. Deducting this figure from probable earnings of $872.84 per weeks gives a difference of $472.84 per week (Step three). As Mr Singh failed with his claim in respect of his right shoulder and as his shoulder is still causing pain and restrictions (see Dr Dixon’s report 29 July 2008) I reduce this figure in the exercise of the section 40(1) discretion to $400.00 per week (Step four). However, the sum of $400.00 exceeds the maximum statutory rate of compensation payable to a worker with no dependants and the award will therefore be reduced to the maximum statutory figure for a partially incapacitated worker with no dependants from 17 June 2007 to 1 October 2008.
Neither party has challenged the Arbitrator’s award under section 40 from 2 October 2008 to date and continuing and that award is confirmed.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a review on the merits (per Spigelman CJ in State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249; (2007) 5 DDCR 287 at [28]), I have concluded that the true and correct position is that Mr Singh was partially incapacitated for work between 17 June 2007 and 10 April 2008, and that he was not entitled to the benefits of compensation under section 38 of the 1987 Act from 11 April 2008 to 1 October 2008. For the reasons set out above I have redetermined Mr Singh’s entitlement and made the appropriate findings under section 40 of the 1987 Act.
DECISION
Paragraph two of the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 June 2009 is revoked and the following orders are made in its place:
“2. That the respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker weekly compensation under section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at the following rates:
$361.30 per week from 17 June 2007 to 30 September 2007;
$367.70 per week from 1 October 2007 to 31 March 2008;
$374.90 per week from 1 April 2008 to 30 September 2008;
$381.40 per week for 1 October 2008, and
$280.12 per week from 2 October 2008 to date and continuing.”
Paragraphs one, three, four and five of the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 June 2009 are confirmed.
COSTS
Each party is to pay his or its own costs of the appeal.
Bill Roche
Acting President
12 October 2009
I, TUYET WALLIS, CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF BILL ROCHE, ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
ASSOCIATE
0
1
0