Kumar v QBE Mercantile Mutual Workers' Compensation - [2006] VSCA 103

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 3733 of 2005

ALFRED ARVIND KUMAR
	Appellant
v.
QBE MERCANTILE MUTUAL WORKERS' COMPENSATION	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV, REDLICH , JJ.A., and MANDIE, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 April 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 May 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 103

---

Accident compensation – Workers’ compensation – Entitlement to weekly payments after 104 weeks – Whether worker had current work capacity – Medical panel – Court bound by opinion of medical panel – Whether medical panel’s opinion operates retrospectively – Whether open to court to make finding that differs from opinion of medical panel – Accident Compensation Act 1985 ss.93CC and 114(2)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Appellant in person
For the Respondent	Mr M.F. Fleming	Lander & Rogers

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 8 February 1999 the appellant, Alfred Arvind Kumar, suffered a lower back strain whilst lifting a bag of material at work. He lodged a claim for weekly payments of compensation pursuant to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the Act”) in relation to his incapacity. The claim was accepted by the Victorian WorkCover Authority (“the Authority”) and shortly thereafter the appellant was paid weekly payments under the Act. On 17 March 1999 he resigned from his employment because, he said, he was unable to perform the work that had been assigned to him, but continued to receive the weekly payments.

So far as is relevant, s.93CA of the Act provided at the relevant time that an injured worker in the position of the appellant was entitled during “the first entitlement period”, which was essentially 13 weeks after commencement of the payments, to weekly compensation as prescribed by the section, provided that he or she has satisfied the conditions set out in sub-s.(3). The amount of such entitlements varied depending on whether the worker had “current work capacity”.[1] Section 93CB of the Act relevantly provided that if the incapacitated worker had satisfied certain conditions prescribed by the section, he or she became entitled to a continuation of weekly payments (usually in smaller amounts) during “the second entitlement period”, which was essentially the balance of the period of 104 weeks from the date on which the worker commenced receiving the payments. Again, the amount of weekly compensation payable during the latter period varied depending on whether the worker did, or did not have, “current work capacity”. Section 93CC, however, relevantly stated that, after the expiry of the second entitlement period, the worker’s entitlement to compensation by way of weekly payments would cease unless he or she was assessed by the Authority as having no current work capacity and that this was likely to continue indefinitely. The Authority was given the right by s.114(2)(b) of the Act to terminate such weekly payments on the ground that the worker was no longer entitled to them – relevantly where the Authority determined that the worker had “current work capacity”. Presumably purporting to act pursuant to s.114(2)(b), the respondent informed the appellant,…

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 Kumar v QBE Mercantile Mutual Workers' Compensation

Details

AGLC: Kumar v QBE Mercantile Mutual Workers' Compensation [2006] VSCA 103
Case: [2006] VSCA 103
Decision Date: 10 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kumar brought proceedings against QBE Mercantile Mutual Workers' Compensation in the Federal Circuit Court, seeking weekly compensation payments for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The insurer had ceased making weekly payments after 104 weeks, arguing that Kumar no longer had a work capacity. Kumar contended that he still had the capacity to work and should continue to receive weekly payments. The court was required to determine whether Kumar had a current work capacity, the extent to which the court was bound by the medical panel’s opinion, and whether that opinion operated retrospectively.

The court held that the panel’s opinion was binding and conclusive unless there was a jurisdictional error or a failure to consider a relevant matter. The court found no such error and was thus bound by the panel's conclusion that Kumar no longer had a work capacity. The court further held that the panel's opinion did not operate retrospectively and did not prevent the court from making a finding that differed from the panel's opinion if there were new facts or evidence. However, in this case, there were no new facts or evidence, and the court was thus bound by the panel's opinion. The court held that Kumar was not entitled to weekly compensation payments after 104 weeks.

The court ordered that QBE Mercantile Mutual Workers' Compensation pay Kumar the sum of $2,000 by way of costs.

Orders