L'Estrange v Manildra Meat Company Pty Ltd - [2022] NSWPIC 563

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	L'Estrange v Manildra Meat Company Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 563
APPLICANT:	Alan Robert L’Estrange
RESPONDENT:	Manildra Meat Company Pty Limited
Member:	Paul Sweeney
DATE OF DECISION:	11 October 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Whether a revoked Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) is evidence that the worker is a “worker with high needs”; whether a worker who has been assessed for permanent impairment compensation is entitled to a further medical assessment to establish that he is a “worker with high needs” or surpasses the section 39 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 threshold to permit continuation of weekly payments after five years; Merchant v Shoalhaven City Council considered and applied; Held – the revoked MAC had no statutory force and effect in respect of the degree of permanent impairment of the worker; the new MAC issued by the Medical Assessment Panel was binding and conclusive as to that question; that the applicant was not entitled to a further medical assessment by operation of section 322A of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.
determinations made:	1. That the proceedings be dismissed.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

By these proceedings Alan Robert L’Estrange ( the applicant) seeks an assessment of the degree of permanent impairment resulting from proven injuries for the purpose of establishing that he is a “worker with high needs” as that term is defined by s 32A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).The litigation between the parties has a long history.
On 6 October 2020, in matter number 3444/20, following a contested hearing, I found that the applicant suffered injury by way of aggravation of pre-existing injuries or pre-existing medical conditions to his neck, back, wrists, elbows, right shoulder, right hip and both knees. I found that the injuries were deemed to have occurred on 27 February 2016 for the purpose of s 15 of the 1987 Act.
As the applicant claimed compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act in those proceedings, I remitted the matter to the Registrar of the then Workers Compensation Commission for referral to an Approved Medical Specialist (AMS) to certify the degree of whole person impairment of the body parts referred.
I referred for assessment each of the body parts which Dr Dixon, the applicant’s qualified orthopaedic surgeon, opined contributed to permanent impairment. These were the cervical spine, the thoracic spine, the lumbar spine, the left upper extremity (left shoulder and left elbow), the right upper extremity (elbow and wrist), the right lower extremity (knee), and the left lower extremity (knee).
The Registrar referred the medical dispute to Dr Anderson, an AMS, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 8 December 2020 by which he certified that the applicant suffered 29% whole person impairment (WPI) as a result of the injuries.
Manildra Meat Company Pty Limited (the respondent) appealed from the medical assessment pursuant to s 327 of the Workplace Injury Management Act !998 ( the1998 Act). A Medical Appeal Panel (MAP)…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read L'Estrange v Manildra Meat Company Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWPIC 563
Decision Date: 11 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of L'Estrange v Manildra Meat Company Pty Ltd, the primary issue before the Court was whether a revoked Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) could be considered evidence that the worker was classified as a "worker with high needs" under the relevant legislation. The Court was also required to determine if the worker, who had previously been assessed for permanent impairment compensation, was entitled to another medical assessment to establish his status as a "worker with high needs" or to surpass the threshold set out in section 39 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which would permit the continuation of weekly payments after five years.

The Court considered the provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, specifically section 322A, which governs the binding and conclusive nature of MACs issued by the Medical Assessment Panel. The Court applied the principles set out in the case of Merchant v Shoalhaven City Council, which held that once a MAC had been revoked, it no longer had any statutory force or effect. In the present case, the Court found that the revoked MAC had no bearing on the degree of permanent impairment of the worker, and the new MAC issued by the Panel was binding and conclusive on that matter. The Court concluded that the worker was not entitled to a further medical assessment as a matter of law, pursuant to section 322A.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the application brought by the worker, affirming that the revoked MAC was not admissible as evidence of the worker's status as a "worker with high needs." The Court further held that the worker was not entitled to a further medical assessment to establish his status as a "worker with high needs" or to surpass the section 39 threshold for the continuation of weekly payments after five years. The Court's decision was based on the clear statutory provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, as well as the relevant case law.

Orders