Mattock v Handrinos - [2016] VSC 798

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2016 01679

KIM LEEANNE MATTOCK	Plaintiff
v
DR DENNIS HANDRINOS	First Defendant
DR JENNY DOWNES-BRYDON	Second Defendant
DR MARIE FELETAR	Third Defendant
MR KEITH ELSNER	Fourth Defendant
BRIMBANK CITY COUNCIL	Fifth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 December 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mattock v Handrinos & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 798

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Order 56 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Accident Compensation Act 1985 - Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 – Review of Medical Panel Opinion – Whether or not Panel failed to take into account a relevant consideration – Whether or not reasons inadequate – Whether or not the plaintiff was afforded procedural fairness.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G. Uren QC Ms S.C. Bailey	Shine Lawyers
For the Fifth Defendant	Mr M. Fleming QC Ms F. Spencer	Lander & Rogers
No appearance for the First – Fourth Defendants.

HIS HONOUR:

On 9 November 2010 the plaintiff, Kim Leeanne Mattock, lodged a claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical and like expenses pursuant to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘ACA’). She claimed to have been injured on 29 October 2010 whilst in the course of her employment with the fifth defendant, Brimbank City Council (‘employer’). The claim was accepted.

In a notice dated 6 May 2015, the employer’s claims agent purported to terminate the plaintiff’s entitlement to weekly payments and medical (and like) expenses, effective from 6 June 2015. The claims agent asserted, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not incapacitated for work; if she was incapacitated, that incapacity was not materially contributed to by an injury arising out of or in the course of her employment; that she no longer required any medical treatment for her injury; and, insofar as she did claim for medical treatment, it was not for a compensable injury under the ACA.

In the same notice, the claims agent purported to terminate the plaintiff’s entitlement to weekly payments on the basis that weekly payments had been paid to the plaintiff for 130 weeks, and that the plaintiff either had a current work capacity, or alternatively if she had no such capacity that situation was not likely to continue indefinitely.

Having received the notice, the plaintiff lodged a request for conciliation. The WorkCover Conciliation Officer referred four questions to a Medical Panel for Opinion pursuant to s 284 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (‘WIRCA’). Accompanying the referred medical questions was a statement providing information as required by s 304 of the WIRCA, together with a bundle of medical reports.

A Medical Panel comprising the first to fourth defendants (‘Panel’) was convened to provide its opinion on the four referred questions. The questions and their answers were:

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 Mattock v Handrinos

Details

AGLC: Mattock v Handrinos [2016] VSC 798
Case: [2016] VSC 798
Decision Date: 21 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mattock v Handrinos, the plaintiff, Mattock, sought judicial review of a decision made by the defendant, Handrinos, who was acting in his capacity as the Medical Panel. The dispute arose from the Medical Panel's assessment of Mattock's entitlement to compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the Medical Panel had failed to consider a relevant factor, whether the reasons provided were inadequate, and whether procedural fairness had been afforded to Mattock. The plaintiff argued that the panel's decision was flawed due to a failure to consider certain medical evidence and that the reasons given were insufficient. Additionally, Mattock contended that he was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the evidence before the panel.

The Court, in its judgement, found that the Medical Panel did indeed fail to take into account a relevant consideration, which was the plaintiff's medical evidence. The Court held that the reasons provided by the panel were inadequate, as they did not sufficiently address the plaintiff's arguments. Furthermore, the Court determined that procedural fairness was not observed, as the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented to the panel. Consequently, the Court quashed the decision of the Medical Panel and remitted the matter back to the panel for reconsideration.

The final orders of the Court included the quashing of the Medical Panel's decision and the direction for the panel to reconsider the matter in light of the Court's findings. The panel was also instructed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and to ensure that procedural fairness was observed in future proceedings.

Orders