Palazzolo v Brown - [2002] WASCA 49

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: PALAZZOLO -v- BROWN & ORS [2002] WASCA 49

CORAM: WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
WHEELER J

HEARD: 19 FEBRUARY 2002

DELIVERED : 13 MARCH 2002

FILE NO/S: CIV 2022 of 2001

MATTER :An Application for Writ of Certiorari against PHILLIPA BROWN, ROBERT McWILLIAM and KATRINA ALEXANDER as members of a Medical Assessment Panel constituted under the Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act (as amended)
BETWEEN: LEAH PALAZZOLO
Applicant
AND
PHILLIPA BROWN
ROBERT McWILLIAM
KATRINA ALEXANDER
Respondents

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Medical assessment panel - Obligation to give sufficient reasons for determination - Turns on own facts

Prerogative writs - Certiorari - Obligation of Medical Assessment Panel to give sufficient reasons - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr R A H Leclezio
Respondents                 :     No appearance
Amicus Curiae              :     Ms J C Pritchard

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Gibson & Gibson
Respondents                 :     No appearance
Amicus Curiae              :     State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

R v Wong; Ex parte Hayes, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980757; 5 October 1998
Re Croser; Ex parte Rutherford [2001] WASCA 422

Case(s) also cited:

R v Gillett; ex parte Rusich [2001] WASCA 11
Re Babban; ex parte Suleski [2001] WASCA 289

WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment and the conclusions which have been reached by Wheeler J.
There is nothing I wish to add.
ANDERSON J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons to be published by Wheeler J. I agree with them and have nothing to add.
WHEELER J: This is the return of an order nisi for a writ of certiorari in respect of a decision of the Medical Assessment Panel ("the Panel") dated 3 April 2001.
On 6 June 1999 the applicant was employed by the Brightwater Care Group Inc as a nursing assistant. She was employed at a home which provided nursing care to young accident victims with acquired brain injury. On that day, while preparing to commence her shift, she was assaulted by a patient, being struck from behind, punched in the head and thrown across the corridor onto a table. Immediately thereafter, not surprisingly, she suffered pain in a variety of parts of her body. Also, her right ankle and foot began swelling. A fracture in her right foot was diagnosed. She was also diagnosed as suffering from reflex sympathetic dystrophy and was referred to a pain clinic. She says that following the accident she continued to suffer aching in her lower limbs, numbness and tingling in the right foot and right calf muscle and other discomfort. There is, it appears, no question in this case that the physical injuries have now resolved. In addition however, the applicant asserts that she suffered from psychological trauma, observations in that respect being made by her general practitioner, Dr Beel and by a psychiatrist, Dr Booth. In…

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 Palazzolo v Brown

Details

AGLC: Palazzolo v Brown [2002] WASCA 49
Case: [2002] WASCA 49
Decision Date: 13 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Palazzolo v Brown, the applicant sought review of a decision by the Medical Assessment Panel, which had determined his entitlement to compensation. The applicant argued that the Panel had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which was necessary to ensure procedural fairness. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the Panel's failure to give sufficient reasons meant that its decision was invalid.

The central legal issue was whether the Panel's obligation to provide sufficient reasons for its determination depended on the particular facts of each case. The applicant argued that the obligation was absolute and that the Panel had failed to comply with it. The Panel, on the other hand, argued that the obligation was not absolute but rather turned on the specific circumstances of each case. The court needed to decide which approach was correct.

The court found in favour of the Panel, holding that the obligation to give sufficient reasons was not absolute but rather depended on the particular facts of each case. The court held that the Panel had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and that the applicant's challenge to the decision failed. The court noted that the obligation to give reasons was a matter of procedural fairness, and that the adequacy of the reasons given would depend on the circumstances of each case. The court held that the Panel had not erred in law or failed to observe a requirement of natural justice.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for review and the Panel's decision was upheld. The court's decision clarifies the scope of the Panel's obligation to provide sufficient reasons for its determinations, and provides guidance to both the Panel and applicants on what constitutes adequate reasons in a particular case.

Orders