Moore v Consolidated Meat Group - [2002] QSC 366

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Moore v Consolidated Meat Group [2002] QSC 366

PARTIES: GARRY LESLIE MOORE
(Applicant)
v
CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LTD
ACN 065 093 709
(Respondent)

FILE NO: S529 of 2002

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 8 November 2002

DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton

HEARING DATE: 7 November 2002

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDERS:Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT – Whether a Notice of Assessment can contain both a certificate injury and a non-certificate injury – whether acceptance of a lump sum offer of compensation where psychiatric injury WRI of 22.5% and physical injury WRI of 7.6% in same Notice of Assessment extinguishes right to claim common law damages for physical injuries.

Lau v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QCA 244 referred to.
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) ss 33, 42, 43, 207, 259

COUNSEL:D V McMeekin SC for the applicant
A M Arnold for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Macrossan & Amiet for the applicant
Swanick Murray Roche for the respondent

This is an application for a declaration that a notice of claim pursuant to the provisions of s280 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 is complies with the statutory provisions.

The application raises an interesting point.

The applicant was assessed as having an injury to his shoulder with a work related impairment (“WRI”) assessed at 2%, a compression fracture of his vertebral column assessed at 6% and a brain injury assessed at 0%. In addition the applicant was assessed with a psychiatric injury assessed at 22.5%. The Notice of Claim claims compensation both in relation to the physical injuries and in relation to the psychiatric injury. The respondent disputes the applicant’s right to claim common law damages in relation to the physical injuries and hence objects to their inclusion in the Notice of Claim.

The notice of assessment listed the injuries in tabular form and an amount of lump sum compensation for each injury in relation to which a percentage WRI was assessed. The notice of assessment then contained the following text:

“You have sustained permanent impairment from the psychiatric/ psychological injury assessed for the purposes of this notice of assessment.

The work related impairment (WRI) for your psychiatric/ psychological injury is: 22.5%

You have sustained permanent impairment from the other (ie physical) injury assessed for the purpose of this Notice of Assessment.

The work related impairment (WRI) for your other (ie physical) injury is: 7.6%

You are entitled to lump sum compensation of $40,540 and therefore, under section 205 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, you are offered the above amount of lump sum compensation.”

The applicant accepted the lump sum offer of compensation and proceeded with the preliminary steps for a common law claim.

The argument centres on whether the applicant has suffered a “certificate injury” in relation to all injuries arising out of the event giving rise to the multiple injuries. The consequences of the injuries being a “certificate injury” are significant. If the applicant has a certificate injury in relation to…

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 Moore v Consolidated Meat Group

Details

AGLC: Moore v Consolidated Meat Group [2002] QSC 366
Case: [2002] QSC 366
Decision Date: 08 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Garry Leslie Moore brought an application against Consolidated Meat Group, seeking a declaration that a notice of claim under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 complied with statutory provisions. The dispute centred on the applicant's right to claim common law damages for physical injuries after accepting a lump sum offer of compensation for both psychiatric and physical injuries. The respondent argued that the acceptance of the lump sum offer extinguished the applicant's right to claim common law damages for the physical injuries. The key legal issues revolved around whether the notice of assessment could contain both a certificate injury and a non-certificate injury, and if the acceptance of the lump sum offer for both types of injuries extinguished the applicant's right to claim common law damages for the physical injuries.

The court examined the statutory definitions of "certificate injury" and "non-certificate injury" under the Act. A certificate injury involves a psychiatric or psychological injury with a work-related impairment (WRI) of 20% or more, or another injury with a WRI of 20% or more. A non-certificate injury, on the other hand, involves a psychiatric or psychological injury with a WRI of less than 20%, another injury with a WRI of less than 20%, or an injury that does not result in any WRI. The court concluded that it was possible for a single notice of assessment to relate to both a certificate injury and a non-certificate injury arising from the same event, as the two types of injuries were mutually exclusive. The court also found that the accompanying explanatory notes and statutory provisions satisfied the requirement that the worker be made aware of their right to elect between accepting the lump sum compensation or bringing a common law action for damages.

The court ruled that the acceptance of the entire lump sum offer constituted an irrevocable election in relation to the non-certificate injuries, extinguishing the applicant's right to claim common law damages for the physical injuries. Since the dispute was in reality about the entitlement to claim common law damages and not about the form of the Notice of Claim, the court exercised its discretion not to make a declaration regarding the form of the Notice of Claim. The application was ultimately dismissed.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the definitions of "certificate injury" and "non-certificate injury" under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, as well as the implications of accepting a lump sum offer of compensation for both types of injuries. The court's decision in this case provides guidance on the interpretation of the Act and the consequences of accepting a lump sum offer for both certificate and non-certificate injuries.

Orders