Ilic v Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd - [2006] NSWWCCPD 157

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Ilic v Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 157
APPELLANT:  Bosco Ilic
RESPONDENT:  Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd
INSURER:CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER:  WCC15405-04
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          8 September 2005
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  19 July 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 67 Workers Compensation Act 1987; approach to take with multiple injuries
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Acting Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Carters Law Firm
Respondent:    CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Arbitrator’s decision of 8 September 2005 are revoked and the following orders made:

“1. Pursuant to section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 the Respondent is to pay the Applicant the following sums:
(i) in respect of injuries sustained on 31 December 2001:
a. $16,000.00 in respect of a 20 per cent permanent loss of use of the right arm at or above the elbow, and
b. $15,000.00 in respect of a 20 per cent loss of use of the left arm at or above the elbow.
(ii)in respect of injury sustained on 13 February 1989, $12,950.40 in respect of a 38 per cent loss of sight in the Applicant’s left eye, and
(iii)in respect of injury to the Applicant’s right eye on 30 July 2002, $23,000.00 in respect of a 17 per cent whole person impairment.

2. In respect of pain and suffering resulting from the Applicant’s arm injuries and consequential section 66 losses, the Respondent is to pay the Applicant $15,500.00 pursuant to section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.”
Paragraph 3 of the Arbitrator’s decision of 8 September 2005 is confirmed.
The matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for the Appellant Worker’s entitlements under section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect of his losses resulting from injuries on 13 February 1989 and 30 July 2002 to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this decision.
The Respondent Employer is to pay the Appellant Worker’s costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

On 27 September 2005 Bosco Ilic (‘the Appellant Worker/Mr Ilic’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 8 September 2005.

The Respondent to the Appeal is Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd (‘the Respondent Employer’).

Mr Ilic was born on 15 January 1942 and is now 64 years of age. In April 1987 he started work for the Respondent Employer as a warehouse hand where he continued until 22 October 2002. His duties included receiving supplies of spares parts which he had to carry and cut for dispatch. Over his period of employment he sustained three compensable injuries in the course of his work:

· on 13 February 1989 a piece of metal entered his left eye;
· on 30 July 2002 he was shot in his right eye by…

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 Ilic v Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ilic v Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 157
Case: [2006] NSWWCCPD 157
Decision Date: 19 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bosco Ilic, an appellant, filed an appeal against the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission in Ilic v Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 157. The appeal was against the decision of the Arbitrator dated 8 September 2005. The Arbitrator had determined that Aldus Engineering Pty Ltd, the respondent employer, was to pay the appellant worker compensation for injuries sustained during employment. The appellant worker claimed that the Arbitrator had erred in failing to make separate assessments for compensation under section 67 in respect of the 13 February 1989 left eye injury and the 30 July 2002 right eye injury. The appeal was granted leave.

The appellant worker was employed as a warehouse hand and sustained three compensable injuries in the course of employment. The Arbitrator had assessed the appellant worker's losses and determined compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The appellant worker argued that each injury was a separate and independent event, and as each loss or impairment passed the threshold in section 67, he was entitled to have his compensation under section 67 separately assessed for each loss. The Arbitrator had declined to assess compensation in accordance with the terms of the 1987 Act. The Acting Deputy President found the Arbitrator was in error.

The Acting Deputy President revoked paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Arbitrator’s decision and made new orders. The respondent employer was to pay the appellant worker compensation for injuries sustained during employment. The matter was remitted to a different Arbitrator for the appellant worker's entitlements under section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in respect of his losses resulting from injuries on 13 February 1989 and 30 July 2002 to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this decision. The respondent employer was to pay the appellant worker's costs of the appeal.

Orders