Madafiglio v Arnotts Biscuits - [2006] NSWWCCPD 36

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

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

CITATION:Madafiglio v Arnott’s Biscuits Limited [2006] NSWWCCPD 36
APPELLANT: Dana Madafiglio
RESPONDENT: Arnott’s Biscuits Limited

INSURER:Royal & Sun Alliance Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd.
FILE NUMBER:  WCC17920-03
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          20 September 2004
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  3 March 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:                Leave to appeal; section 352(4) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Rule 77(8) & (9) Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003; decision not supported by the evidence; weight of evidence.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Deputy President Gary Byron
HEARING:Determined on the papers.
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:     Maurice Blackburn Cashman,
Lawyers
Respondent: Moray & Agnew, Solicitors

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: Leave to appeal the decision of the Arbitrator, dated 20 September 2004, is refused.
No order is made as to the costs of this appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

Mrs Dana Madafiglio, the Appellant, was employed by Arnott’s Biscuits Limited (‘Arnotts’), the Respondent, from 20 September 1995 until the termination of her employment on 17 October 2003. Mrs Madafiglio was employed as a technician, being a machine operator, operating a mixer. Royal & Sun Alliance Worker’s Compensation (NSW) Ltd (‘the Insurer’) was Arnott’s workers compensation insurer at all relevant times.

Mrs Madafiglio claims to have suffered an injury to her back on 30 September 2002, when she stepped up to an oven, and then slipped and fell into a sitting position. Mrs Madafiglio claims that she suffered a partial incapacity for work as a result of an injury that arose out of and in the course of her employment with Arnotts.

On 30 September 2002 Mrs Madafiglio notified Arnotts of the injury.

On 1 October 2002 Mrs Madafiglio lodged a claim with the Insurer for weekly benefits and medical expenses.

On 18 February 2003 the Insurer advised Mrs Madafiglio that it denied further liability for the claim; that payment of weekly benefits would cease on 2 March 2003, and that medical benefits would cease forthwith.

It was established at the arbitration hearing on 9 September 2004, that Mrs Madafiglio continued to receive weekly benefits until 8 August 2003. The payments beyond 2 March 2003 were inadvertently made on the part of the Insurer, however Arnotts did not request any repayments at that stage.

On 11 November 2003 Mrs Madafiglio lodged an ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ (‘Application’) in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘Commission’). The Application was registered in the Commission on 17 November 2003. The basis of her claim is that she suffered injury to her back on 30 September 2002, arising from the “nature and conditions” of her employment with Arnotts. The claim was for weekly compensation payments and “section 60 expenses”.

The matter was listed for an arbitration hearing in the Commission, on 9 September 2004. Both parties were legally represented.

The Arbitrator made a determination in the matter on 20 September 2004.

On 30 September 2004 Mrs Madafiglio lodged a further ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ with the Commission.…

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 Madafiglio v Arnotts Biscuits

Details

AGLC: Madafiglio v Arnotts Biscuits [2006] NSWWCCPD 36
Case: [2006] NSWWCCPD 36
Decision Date: 3 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Madafiglio v Arnott's Biscuits, the appellant, Dana Madafiglio, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator made on 20 September 2004. The central issue was whether the Arbitrator's decision was supported by the evidence, particularly regarding the weight of evidence concerning the transitory nature of the injury sustained by Madafiglio. The appeal was initially filed eight months late, breaching the statutory time limit, and was subsequently extended by the Registrar. The appellant argued that the Arbitrator erred in relying on the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr Hitchen and in finding that the consequences of the injury would have been transitory.

The court examined the application for leave to appeal under Rule 77 of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2003, which requires that exceptional circumstances exist for extending the time to appeal. The court noted that Madafiglio had failed to provide sufficient reasons for the significant delay in filing the appeal, despite having initially requested an extension. The court found that the reasons provided were inadequate to demonstrate that strict compliance with the rules would cause substantial injustice to Madafiglio. Moreover, the court highlighted that extending the time for appeal would significantly prejudice Arnotts, who had no fault in the delay. Consequently, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances did not exist and refused leave to appeal.

The court's reasoning focused on the procedural requirements for filing an appeal and the importance of adhering to statutory timelines. The court emphasized that the discretion to extend time is meant to ensure justice between the parties, a goal not achieved in this case due to the lack of compelling reasons for the delay and the resulting prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the court upheld the Arbitrator's decision and denied the appeal, leaving no order for costs.

Orders