Manojlovic v Astro Group Management Pty Limited

Manojlovic v Astro Group Management Pty Limited was a dispute between the Applicant, Mrs Manojlovic, and the Respondent, Astro Group Management Pty Limited, which came before the court. The dispute arose out of an injury sustained by Mrs Manojlovic while working as a cleaner for the Respondent. Mrs Manojlovic sought compensation for her injuries under the Workers Compensation Act. The Arbitrator had previously determined that the Respondent was liable for the Applicant's injuries and had awarded compensation. However, the Applicant sought to overturn the Arbitrator's decision on the grounds that it was based on an incorrect evaluation of the medical evidence.

The court was required to decide whether the Arbitrator had erred in preferring the evidence of Professor Ehrlich over that of Drs Bodel and Giblin, and whether the Arbitrator had correctly evaluated the weight of the evidence in determining the Applicant's incapacity. The court also had to determine whether the Arbitrator's decision on the Respondent's liability was correct.

The court found that the Arbitrator had erred in preferring Professor Ehrlich's evidence over that of Drs Bodel and Giblin. The court accepted the evidence of Drs Bodel and Giblin that Mrs Manojlovic's injuries were caused by the fall and that she was incapacitated as a result of those injuries. The court found that Professor Ehrlich's evidence was unpersuasive as he had failed to adequately explain why the worker's complaints should not be regarded as an aggravation of the degenerative changes already present in the worker's neck and back. The court also found that the Arbitrator had not adequately evaluated the weight of the evidence in determining the Applicant's incapacity. The court found that the Arbitrator had given undue weight to Professor Ehrlich's evidence and had not adequately considered the evidence of Drs Bodel and Giblin. The court found that the Arbitrator's decision on the Respondent's liability was correct.

The decision of the Arbitrator was revoked and a new decision was made in its place. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant weekly compensation at the rate of $725.92 per week from 19 April 2009 to 2 June 2009, and at the maximum statutory rate for a worker with no dependents from 3 June 2009 to date and continuing. The Respondent was also ordered to pay the Applicant's costs.