Lianos v Inner & Eastern Health Care Network - [1999] VSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 7379 of 1998

JOHN LIANOS	Appellant
v.
INNER & EASTERN HEALTH CARE NETWORK	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 JUNE 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 AUGUST 1999
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	LIANOS v. INNER & EASTERN HEALTH CARE NETWORK
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 307

---

CATCHWORDS: Accident Compensation Act 1985 – Medical Panel opinion – Total and partial incapacity – Admissibility of reasons - Odd lot doctrine.

Masters v McCubbery and Others (No 2) [1996] 1 V.R. 635.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr. M. O’Loghlen QC Mr. Sala	Zaparis & Dandanis
For the Respondent	Mr. M. Fleming	Purves Clarke Richards

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me an appeal under s. 109 of the Magistrates Court Act 1989 against orders made by Magistrate O’Dwyer in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 16 September 1998. Those orders dismissed the appellant’s complaint against the respondent. The appellant seeks that the matter be sent back to the Magistrates’ Court differently constituted for a rehearing de novo under s. 109(6) of that Act.

The original complaint, No. K01348329, was filed in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 4 June 1997. In short, the appellant’s claim was that the respondent, as his employer, was liable to pay him weekly payments as compensation for injury sustained in the course of his employment, on the grounds that the appellant had a serious injury and/or was totally and permanently incapacitated within the terms of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the main Act”). Under s. 43 of the main Act the Magistrates’ Court was the relevant jurisdiction.

The appellant, John Lianos worked as an orderly/cleaner for the respondent, the Inner & Eastern Health Care Network. In or around December 1987, while attempting to pick up a large and heavy container of liquid soap, the appellant suffered injury to his back. As a result the appellant found it difficult to work and developed a severe anxiety and depressive state.

The appellant ‘s claim is that he was then incapacitated for work for various periods known to the respondent, such incapacity resulting from or materially contributed to by the injury. The appellant submitted a claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical and like expenses upon the respondent in respect of the injury and the respondent accepted the claim and admitted liability to make weekly payments of compensation and to pay medical and like expenses on the appellant’s behalf.

It was common ground between the parties that pursuant to provisions of the Accident Compensation (Workcover Insurance) Act 1993 and through its insurance agent FAI Workers Compensation (Vic) Pty Ltd the respondent was liable to pay compensation pursuant to the main Act in respect of its employees.

In February 1997 the respondent’s authorised insurer advised the appellant by formal notice under s. 114 of the main Act that his claim for weekly compensation payments would be terminated as…

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 Lianos v Inner & Eastern Health Care Network 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: [1999] VSC 307
Decision Date: 27 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Lianos, the appellant, and Inner & Eastern Health Care Network, the respondent. The dispute pertained to the interpretation and application of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. Specifically, the case centred on whether the tribunal could consider the reasons provided by the medical panel when assessing total and partial incapacity. The Odd lot doctrine, which prohibits the consideration of parts of a decision that are not supported by evidence, was also at the core of the arguments.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal had erred in law by considering the reasons provided by the medical panel when assessing total and partial incapacity. The appellant argued that the tribunal's consideration of the reasons was inconsistent with the Odd lot doctrine, which prohibits the consideration of parts of a decision that are not supported by evidence. The respondent contended that the tribunal was entitled to consider the reasons provided by the medical panel as they were relevant to the assessment of total and partial incapacity.

In its decision, the court found that the tribunal had not erred in law by considering the reasons provided by the medical panel when assessing total and partial incapacity. The court held that the Odd lot doctrine did not preclude the tribunal from considering the reasons provided by the medical panel, as they were relevant to the assessment of total and partial incapacity. The court further held that the tribunal was entitled to consider the reasons provided by the medical panel as they were relevant to the assessment of total and partial incapacity. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders