(1) Quash the whole of the decision made by the third defendant, the Medical Appeal Panel of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW appointed pursuant to s 328(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 made on 28 January 2015, and the Medical Assessment Certificate issued with the decision. (2) Declare, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 that the Certificate and Statement of Reasons issued by the third defendant on 28 January 2015 is void and of no effect. (3) Remit the matter to the second defendant for the purpose of constituting an Appeal Panel under s 328(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to determine the matter according to law. (4) First defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – workplace injury – industrial deafness – decision of Medical Appeal Panel – assessment of whole person impairment – deduction for pre-existing injury – whether adequate evidence to make a deduction for pre-existing condition – whether too difficult or costly to assess pre-existing injury
On 24 April 2015, Mr Leslie Oswald Gerald Pereira (“the plaintiff”) commenced proceedings against Siemens Ltd (“the employer”) as the first defendant, the Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW as the second defendant, and the Medical Panel of the Workers Compensation Commission as the third defendant.
The second and third defendants have filed submitting appearances and have taken no active part in the proceedings.
Relief Sought
The plaintiff claimed the following relief:
“1. A declaration pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW) that the Certificate and Statement of Reasons issued by the second defendant, constituted by the third defendant, on 28 January 2015, is void…
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 Pereira v Siemens Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Pereira v Siemens Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1133
Case
[2015] NSWSC 1133
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Pereira v Siemens Ltd involved the applicant, Pereira, challenging a decision of the Medical Appeal Panel regarding the assessment of whole person impairment due to industrial deafness. The dispute arose from a workplace injury that resulted in Pereira suffering from industrial deafness. The Medical Appeal Panel had assessed Pereira's whole person impairment, but made a deduction for a pre-existing injury. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether there was adequate evidence to justify a deduction for a pre-existing injury, and whether it was too difficult or costly to assess the pre-existing injury. The court had to consider the evidence presented and the reasoning provided by the Medical Appeal Panel in making its decision.
The court found that the Medical Appeal Panel had not provided sufficient evidence to support the deduction for the pre-existing injury. The panel's reasoning was not detailed enough to allow the court to determine the extent to which the pre-existing injury affected the assessment of the whole person impairment. Additionally, the court found that it was not too difficult or costly to assess the pre-existing injury, as the panel had access to relevant medical records. As a result, the court allowed the application for judicial review and set aside the decision of the Medical Appeal Panel.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Medical Appeal Panel for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The panel was required to provide a more detailed assessment of the pre-existing injury and its impact on the whole person impairment, and to make a decision based on adequate evidence.