Marsh v Newcastle Stevedores Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Marsh v Newcastle Stevedores Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 173
APPLICANT: Robert William Marsh
RESPONDENT: Newcastle Stevedores Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER: John Harris
DATE OF DECISION: 8 June 2021
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION- The worker suffered injury to both shoulders and his left knee in 2010; there was a subsequent exacerbation of the left shoulder in a 2012 motor vehicle injury; the AMS assessed a 7/10th deduction pursuant to section 323 for the left shoulder and a 10/10th deduction for the right shoulder; the subsequent effects of the 2012 accident were included in the section 323 deduction of the left shoulder; the overall whole person impairment was assessed by the AMS at 8%; the applicant failed to file an appeal in time against the medical assessment due to gross inadvertence by his solicitor; during this period, the Commission issued a determinatin (COD) in accordance with the MAC; the applicant then filed an application to rescind the COD so that an appeal could be filed; Held- the power to reconsider an order depended upon the interests of justice; Atomic Steel Constructions Pty Ltd v Tedeschi applied; the applicant had strong prospects of success as the application of a subsequent injury in the section 323 deduction was a clear error; Department of Education v Johnson applied; the AMS otherwise failed to explain and give reasons for the 10/10ths deduction of the right shoulder and appeared to reject the agreement on injury; Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd (No 2) applied; the conduct of the applicant’s solicitor in causing the delay arguably amounted to “special circumstances” to extend time within the meaning of section 327(5) of the 1998 Act; despite the poor explanation for the delay and undoubted prejudice that the respondent would suffer if an appeal was filed, the COD was rescinded due to the strong prospects of the potential appeal.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

1. The Certificate of Determination dated 26 November 2020 is set aside pursuant to s 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 as preserved by Schedule 1 clause 14D of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Robert Marsh (the applicant) was employed by Newcastle Stevedores Pty Ltd (the respondent) and sustained a compensable work injury on 12 September 2010.

  2. The applicant made a claim pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act) arising from the injury. The Commission referred the claim to Dr Timothy Anderson an Approved Medical Specialist (the AMS). Dr Anderson provided a Medical Assessment Certificate dated 22 October 2020 (the MAC) wherein he assessed the applicant as having the following whole person impairment (WPI):

    (a)    left lower extremity – 1%;

    (b) right upper extremity – 22% less a 100% deduction pursuant to s 323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 (the 1998 Act), and

    (c)    left upper extremity– 22% less a 7/10th deduction pursuant to s 323 of the 1998 Act.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Marsh v Newcastle Stevedores 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
[2021] NSWPIC 173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Marsh v Newcastle Stevedores Pty Ltd, the applicant, Marsh, sought to set aside a Commission Order of Determination (COD) related to his workers' compensation claim. The dispute centered around the assessment of his whole person impairment and the subsequent injury to his left shoulder in a 2012 motor vehicle accident. The Australian Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) assessed a 7/10th deduction for the left shoulder and a 10/10th deduction for the right shoulder. Marsh's application to rescind the COD to file an appeal was delayed due to gross inadvertence by his solicitor.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Commission had the power to reconsider the COD, and if so, whether it was in the interests of justice to do so. The court considered whether the delay in filing the appeal was due to special circumstances under section 327(5) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1998 Act), and if the applicant had genuine prospects of success. The court also assessed the impact of the delay on both parties and the correctness of the AMS's assessment.

The court held that the power to reconsider an order indeed depended on the interests of justice, as established in Atomic Steel Constructions Pty Ltd v Tedeschi. It was noted that the applicant had strong prospects of success as the application of a subsequent injury in the section 323 deduction was a clear error. The court found that the AMS failed to explain and give reasons for the 10/10ths deduction of the right shoulder and appeared to reject the agreement on injury, as highlighted in Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd (No 2). The court also observed that the conduct of the applicant’s solicitor in causing the delay arguably amounted to “special circumstances” under section 327(5) of the 1998 Act. Despite the poor explanation for the delay and the prejudice it would cause the respondent if the appeal was filed, the COD was rescinded due to the strong prospects of the potential appeal.

The court ordered that the COD be set aside and the matter remitted to the Australian Medical Services (AMS) for reassessment of the applicant's whole person impairment. This decision allowed the applicant to pursue his appeal against the AMS's assessment, which was found to contain significant errors.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The applicant has moved to set aside the COD pursuant to s 350(3) of the 1998 Act. Section 350(3)[4] confers power on the Commission to reconsider any decision made by the Commission and is in the following terms:“350 Decisions of Commission(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, a decision of the Commission under the Workers Compensation Acts is final and binding on the parties and is not subject to appeal or review.(2) …(3) The Commission may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with by the Commission and rescind, alter or amend any decision previously made or given by the Commission.” The applicant submitted that he was unaware of the MAC due to administrative error by his solicitors. He has genuine prospects of success, the dictates of justice and the absence of prejudice “demand” that the COD be rescinded. The delay in the application is “roughly 3 months”. Given the injury was in 2010, this delay is “arguably totally insignificant” and otherwise “falls squarely at the feet at the legal representatives of the applicant”. Various Presidential authorities in relation to the power to extend time to file an appeal to a Presidential member under s 352(4) of the 1998 Act have held that inadvertence or administrative errors by legal practitioners do not amount to “exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time to appeal”. This matter is different as the worker was never made aware of the MAC within the appeal period. The applicant has obvious prejudice if denied a right to appeal as other benefits are “inextricably linked to whole person impairment determinations”. The prejudice to the respondent is minimal and the delay is insignificant. The AMS made errors including:- Failure to refer to the contemporaneous x-ray of 27 October 2020. This x-ray showed “minimal degenerative changes”.- The s 323 deductions were grossly excessive and incorrectly applied the statutory criteria.- The s 323 deduction of 100% for the right shoulder seeks to subvert the finding of injury. This deduction is not open on the evidence. A failure to investigate does not equate with a failure to complain or experience.- There is an “improper use and misapplication of s 323”.- The 7/10th deduction of the left shoulder is not open on the evidence.- The left knee requires reassessment as “the proper assessment is that of ROM performed by each and every single other assessor to have assessed the worker”. The applicant provided further written submissions following the telephone conference. He then embraced the discussion in Robertson as setting the relevant test for an extension of time under s 327(5) and that, consistent with the decision of Johnson, a subsequent injury does not fall within the meaning of s 323. The applicant has not established “special circumstances”. The time to appeal expired on 19 November 2020 and the application to appeal was lodged on 15 March 2020. The application for reconsideration was filed on 23 March 2020. There is a delay outside the period to appeal of approximately four months, rather than the three months asserted by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.