Jokic v Primo Smallgoods Pty Ltd

[2017] NSWWCCPD 16

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:	Jokic v Primo Smallgoods Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 16
APPELLANT:	Mira Jokic
RESPONDENT:	Primo Smallgoods Pty Ltd
INSURER:	CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER:	A1-4129/16
ARBITRATOR:	Mr J Wynyard
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:	15 November 2016
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	28 April 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Extension of time to appeal
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:	NSW Compensation Lawyers
Respondent:	BBW Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The appellant’s application to extend time, pursuant to Part 16 r 16.2(12) of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2011 is refused.

INTRODUCTION

1. This appeal involves a challenge to factual findings by an Arbitrator, and the entry of an award in favour of the employer, on a claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The appeal was made out of time. For reasons which appear below, an application by Mira Jokic (the appellant) for leave to extend time is refused.

BACKGROUND

1. The appellant worked with Primo Smallgoods Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a process worker. She was injured in an incident on 24 June 2014 (the occurrence of which is not challenged) when she was accidentally struck in the face by a metal pole, being used by a co-worker. She was off work for a few weeks, resumed on selected duties, and eventually ceased work from
   1 September 2014. She was paid voluntary compensation benefits until 26 September 2014, when the respondent’s insurer issued a s 74 notice denying liability. The insurer accepted that the appellant suffered a laceration to her “lip/mouth” in the incident, but not injury to various other body parts which she claimed.

2. The appellant was assessed by Dr Habib, an orthopaedic surgeon, at the request of her solicitors, and he reported on 13 August 2015. Dr Habib had previously treated the appellant in connection with her alleged injuries. Dr Habib assessed 16 per cent whole person impairment in respect of the cervical spine, lumbar spine and right upper extremity (shoulder). The appellant was also assessed by Dr Greenberg, a general and gastrointestinal surgeon, at her solicitors’ request, and he reported on 23 May 2016. He assessed 5 per cent whole person impairment in respect of the appellant’s upper and lower gastrointestinal symptoms. This was alleged as a secondary condition, resulting from medication the appellant had taken for her orthopaedic injuries. The appellant’s solicitors made a claim for lump sum compensation on her behalf, in respect 20 per cent whole person impairment, on 3 June 2016. The respondent disputed that claim on 20 June 2016, relying on the reasons in the s 74 notice it had previously issued.

3. The current proceedings, claiming the assessed lump sum compensation, were commenced by Application to Resolve a Dispute registered on 9 August 2016 (the Application). The respondent’s Reply relied on the reasons in its previous notice. An…