Minter Ellison Services Pty Ltd v Kotzman - [2012] VSC 375

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

No. S CI 2012 01247

MINTER ELLISON SERVICES PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
DR DAVID KOTZMAN & ORS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	JUDD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Minter Ellison Services Pty Ltd v Kotzman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 375

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Review of decision of medical panel –- ‘present inability arising from an injury’– Connection between workplace injury and another cause of incapacity – Inconsistent answers to questions – Accident Compensation Act 1985 s 93C and s 5 definition of ‘no current work capacity’.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Review of decision of medical panel – Error of law – Inconsistent answers to questions – Error predicated on assumptions made by the parties about the meaning of questions and answers – No challenge to ambiguous answers – All questions referred to different panel – Reconsideration of the questions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Gorton SC with Mr R Kumar	Wisewould Mahony
For the Defendant	Mr A Keogh SC with Mr G Wicks	Shine Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

This proceeding was commenced by Originating Motion on 7 March 2012. The plaintiff sought an order under O 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, quashing that part of the Certified Opinion of a Medical Panel convened under s 68(6) of Accident Compensation Act 1985, being its answer to question 4. The Panel members are the first to fourth defendants. The plaintiff also sought an order that the fifth defendant, as Convenor of Medical Panels, cause the Panel to answer question 4 according to law.

The plaintiff’s grounds for its application were as follows:

The Medical Panel erred in law in reaching its opinion in answer to question 4 to the effect that the sixth defendant had no current work capacity and this situation was likely to continue indefinitely, by reason of the following:
(a)It misinterpreted or misapplied the term ‘no current work capacity’, defined in section 5 of the Act as ‘a present inability arising from an injury such that the worker is not able to return to work, either in the worker’s pre-injury employment or in suitable employment’, and impermissibly took into account a supervening left knee injury which was not compensable under the Act, thereby falling into jurisdictional error;
(b)The reasons of the Medical Panel and the evidence before it show that the Panel impermissibly took into account the effect of the worker’s supervening left knee symptoms and signs and their effect in reaching its opinion that she has no current work capacity;
(c)The reasons of the Medical Panel demonstrate that it did not consider the submissions made by the Agent in forming its opinion.

Deberra Darbyshire, the sixth defendant, was injured at her place of work on 15 November 2004. She was employed by the plaintiff. She caught…

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 Minter Ellison Services Pty Ltd v Kotzman 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: [2012] VSC 375
Decision Date: 10 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Minter Ellison Services Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by a medical panel concerning the worker’s compensation claim of Kotzman. The dispute centred on the determination of Kotzman’s current work capacity and whether he had any present inability arising from an injury under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The court was required to assess whether the medical panel’s findings were legally sound, particularly regarding the interplay between the workplace injury and other causes of incapacity, as well as the significance of inconsistent answers provided during the assessment.

The legal issues before the court included whether the medical panel had made an error of law in interpreting the statutory provisions and whether the panel's findings were based on incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the questions asked. The court needed to determine if the panel had properly considered all relevant information, including the inconsistencies in Kotzman’s responses, and whether these inconsistencies affected the panel's conclusions. Additionally, the court examined whether the panel's decision could be faulted for failing to address the ambiguity in the answers provided.

The court concluded that the medical panel had indeed made an error of law. The panel's decision appeared to be predicated on assumptions about the meaning of certain questions and answers, without adequately addressing the ambiguity in Kotzman’s responses. The court found that the panel had not sufficiently challenged or clarified these ambiguous answers, leading to a flawed interpretation of the statutory definitions. Consequently, the court allowed the application for judicial review and remitted the matter back to the panel for reconsideration, ensuring all relevant questions were properly addressed and interpreted in light of the statutory provisions.

Orders