Pearson v State of Tasmania - [2024] TASSC 41

[2024] TASSC 41

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Pearson v State of Tasmania [2024] TASSC 41
PARTIES:	PEARSON, Rosemary Joy
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	2910/2023
DECISION
APPEALED FROM:	P v State of Tasmania (Department for Education, Children and Young People) [2023] TASCAT 174
DELIVERED ON:	3 September 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Preliminary requirements – Interim payments – Worker provided medical certificate and sought resumption of weekly payments after gap in certification – Employer elected to treat certificate as if an initial claim – Whether employer liable to resume weekly payments pending interim determination by tribunal.

Aust Dig Workers Compensation [303]

Legislation:

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 69(1), (13), 81, 81A(3).

Cases cited:
Bird v Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1
Christiansen v JW Simpson & Co Pty Ltd [1971] SASR 412
Vergis v Brownbuilt Limited (1973) 5 SASR 591
Viney v Roney Management Pty Ltd (1996) 6 Tas R 240
Von Stieglitz v Tandara Lodge Nursing Home Inc [2003] TASSC 108
Williams v Norske Skog Papers Mills (Australia) Ltd [2003] TASSC 125

Wilson v Wilson's Tile Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: C Schokman
Respondent: O Robinson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Ogilvie Jennings

Respondent: Judgment Number: Number of paragraphs:	State Litigator
[2024] TASSC 41
22

Serial No 41/2024 File No 2910/2023

ROSEMARY JOY PEARSON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BLOW CJ
3 September 2024

[On 5 August 2024 Blow CJ made orders in this matter allowing the appeal, setting aside the decision appealed against, and ordering that the respondent pay to the appellant weekly payments of workers compensation in respect of the period from 14 June 2023 to 6 August 2023 inclusive. On 3 September 2024, after counsel for both parties made further submissions, his Honour made an order varying the order of 5 August 2024 so as to specify the period from 18 May 2023 to 12 July 2023 as the period in respect of which payments were to be made. His Honour published written reasons for his orders of 5 August 2024. The reasons below are a revised version of those reasons, and are reasons for making the orders as varied.]

1 This appeal concerns a dispute as to whether an employer is liable to pay a worker weekly payments of workers compensation in respect of a period from 18 May 2023 and 12 July 2023.
2 The worker in question is Rosemary Pearson, the appellant in these proceedings. Her employer is the respondent, the State of Tasmania. At all material times the worker was employed in the Department for Education, Children and Young People. The sequence of events to which this appeal relates can be summarised as follows:

•

On 14 November 2022 the worker made a claim for workers compensation alleging that she became incapacitated for work as a result 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pearson v State of Tasmania 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: [2024] TASSC 41
Decision Date: 3 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pearson v State of Tasmania involved an employee who claimed workers' compensation benefits following an injury sustained at work. The employee provided a medical certificate to support the claim and subsequently sought the resumption of weekly payments after a gap in certification. The employer, the State of Tasmania, chose to treat the provided certificate as if it were an initial claim, thereby withholding the resumption of weekly payments. The employee sought a court order compelling the employer to resume these payments pending an interim determination by the tribunal. The primary legal issues centred on whether the employer was obligated to resume weekly payments and what the correct interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions was in the context of the employee's request.

The court examined the statutory framework governing workers' compensation claims and payments. It noted that under the relevant legislation, an employee could be entitled to weekly payments pending a determination by the tribunal if certain conditions were met, including the provision of a medical certificate. The court further considered the employer's right to treat a certificate as if it were an initial claim and the implications of this decision on the resumption of payments. The court found that the statutory language allowed for the employer to make this election, but this did not absolve them of the obligation to resume payments if the conditions for entitlement were satisfied. The court concluded that the employer was required to resume the weekly payments to the employee pending the tribunal's determination.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees who had provided the necessary medical certificates were not left without financial support during the period before the tribunal made its determination. The court also highlighted the need for a balanced interpretation of the statutory provisions to achieve the legislative intent of providing timely support to injured workers. The final orders of the court required the employer to resume the weekly payments to the employee, pending the tribunal's determination, and to pay the employee's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders