Legal Research
Cases
Omerasevic v Kotzman

Omerasevic v Kotzman

Case [2016] VSC 383 22 July 2016

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Legitimate Expectation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2014 06893

SMAJL OMERASEVIC	Plaintiff
v
DR DAVID KOTZMAN AND OTHERS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	RIORDAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 JUNE 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 JULY 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	OMERASEVIC V KOTZMAN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 383

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) O 56 – Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 (Vic) - Whether the misinterpretation of the plaintiff’s work duties to the medical panel resulted in a denial of procedural fairness – Whether the medical panel’s reasons were adequate - Whether the medical panel failed to take into account relevant matters – Whether a failure of the medical panel to have regard to certain matters could constitute jurisdictional error – The circumstances in which a failure of the medical panel to have regard to a worker’s answers or referral material could constitute jurisdictional error discussed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms M Schilling	Zaparas Lawyers
For the Respondents	Mr M Fleming QC Mr R Kumar	Minter Ellison

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

The relevant facts............................................................................................................................... 1

Questions referred to the Medical Panel................................................................................... 3
Statutory regime............................................................................................................................ 4
The plaintiff’s submissions to the Medical Panel.................................................................... 6
The defendants’ submissions to the Medical Panel................................................................ 8

Reasons of the Medical Panel.......................................................................................................... 8

Carpal tunnel syndrome.............................................................................................................. 8
History................................................................................................................................... 8
Examination........................................................................................................................ 11
Opinion............................................................................................................................... 11

Injuries to the spine.................................................................................................................... 12
History................................................................................................................................. 12
Examination........................................................................................................................ 13
Opinion............................................................................................................................... 14

Grounds of appeal in respect of the carpal tunnel syndrome................................................. 14

The misinterpretation of the plaintiff’s work duties by the interpreter............................. 15
Breach of the hearing rule.......................................................................................................... 18
Plaintiff’s submissions...................................................................................................... 18
Defendants’ submissions.................................................................................................. 19
Authorities with respect to whether misinterpretation breaches the hearing rule. 20
Conclusion on breach of the hearing rule...................................................................... 22

Did the misinterpretation cause jurisdictional error?........................................................... 24

Grounds of appeal in respect of injuries to the plaintiff’s spine............................................ 25

Inadequate reasons..................................................................................................................... 25
Plaintiff’s submissions...................................................................................................... 25
Defendants’ submissions.................................................................................................. 26
Conclusion on adequacy of reasons............................................................................... 27

Jurisdictional error - failing to take into account a mandatory relevant consideration... 30
Plaintiff’s submissions...................................................................................................... 31
Defendants’ submissions.................................................................................................. 32
Authorities with respect to jurisdictional error............................................................ 32
Conclusion on failing to take into consideration a mandatory relevant consideration 39
Did the medical panel fail to take the Continuing Symptoms Evidence into account? 40
Would failure to have regard to the Continuing Symptoms Evidence constitute jurisdictional error?............................................................................. 41

Jurisdictional error - ignoring relevant material.................................................................... 42

Relief................................................................................................................................................... 42

Introduction

By second amended originating motion filed pursuant to leave granted on 20 June 2016, the plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the certificate of opinion of a Medical Panel (‘the Medical Panel’) dated 4 November 2014 which responded to a number of questions referred by the County Court under s 274(1)(b) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act2013 (‘the WIRC Act’) in respect of…

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 Omerasevic v Kotzman

Details

AGLC: Omerasevic v Kotzman [2016] VSC 383
Case: [2016] VSC 383
Decision Date: 22 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Omerasevic v Kotzman involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Omerasevic, and the defendant, Kotzman, over the interpretation and application of various legislative provisions related to worker's compensation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the medical panel had misinterpreted his work duties, which led to a denial of procedural fairness. He also contended that the medical panel's reasons were inadequate and that they failed to take into account relevant matters.

The court was required to determine whether the misinterpretation of the plaintiff's work duties to the medical panel constituted a denial of procedural fairness, whether the medical panel's reasons were adequate, and whether the panel failed to consider relevant matters. Additionally, the court needed to decide if a failure to consider certain matters could constitute a jurisdictional error and the circumstances in which such a failure could be considered a jurisdictional error.

In addressing the issues, the court examined the relevant legislation, including the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). The court found that the medical panel had indeed misinterpreted the plaintiff's work duties, which did result in a denial of procedural fairness. However, the court also determined that the medical panel's reasons were adequate, and there was no failure to consider relevant matters. Furthermore, the court concluded that a failure of the medical panel to consider certain matters did not constitute a jurisdictional error in the circumstances of this case.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review and affirmed the decision of the medical panel.

Orders