Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation (No 2) - [2015] NSWDC 345

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 345
Hearing dates: 28 – 30 October 2015
Date of orders: 30 October 2015
Decision date: 30 October 2015
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Provided that the differential diagnoses of ulnar neuropathy at each elbow and median neuropathy at the right wrist be excluded as effective causes of the plaintiff's pain (either by surgical intervention or by opinion following further testing), it is reasonably necessary that the plaintiff undergo surgical treatment between C3 and C7 as proposed

Liberty to the parties to apply on three days' notice as to any further orders being sought or as to any further argument concerning issues of proposed medical treatment
Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings
Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – Police Superannuation – Whether surgery proposed to be practised on plaintiff’s neck reasonably necessary – Whether neck condition the result of an injury or part of a disease process – Meaning of the words “reasonably necessary as a result of injury”
Legislation Cited: Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, s 12D
Workers Compensation Act 1926, s 10
Workers Compensation Act 1987, ss 59, 60
Cases Cited: Bartolo v Western Sydney Area Health Service (1997) 14 NSWCCR 233
Casey v NSW Police Department (1999) 18 NSWCCR 592
Commissioner of Police v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 328; (2007) 5 DDCR 380
Pelama Pty Ltd v Blake (1988) 4 NSWCCR 264
Perrin v SASTC [2013] NSWDC 191
Perrin v SASTC [2014] NSWDC 203; (2014) 19 DCLR (NSW) 193
Rose v Health Commission (NSW) (1986) 2 NSWCCR 32
Texts Cited:
AJ Buzzard, Sir Edward Hughes, GL Hughes and JDB Wells, Medicine and Surgery for Lawyers (The Law Book Company, 1st ed ,1986)
RJ Mobbs, P Rao Gollapudi and NK Chandran, “Outcome following anterior cervical discectomyin compensation patients” (2001) 8 (2) Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 124
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Scott David Perrin (Plaintiff)
SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P O’Rourke (Plaintiff)
Mr D Stanton (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff)
SMK Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): RJ256/13
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Today's decision follows upon a hearing conducted after I held, on 28 October 2014, that this Court has jurisdiction to make a finding that surgery proposed for the plaintiff is reasonably necessary as a result of the plaintiff's having been hurt on duty. That in original decision is reported at [2014] NSWDC 203; (2014) 19 DCLR (NSW) 193. That is not the only earlier reported decision concerning the interaction of the plaintiff with the current defendant. The parties were engaged in other litigation under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 ("the Act") before Gibson DCJ, which is reported at [2013] NSWDC 191. However, it would appear, from my knowledge of what has happened in the past, that this is in fact the fourth set of proceedings taken by Mr Perrin pursuant to provisions of s 21 of the Act.

The plaintiff’s…

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 Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation (No 2) 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: [2015] NSWDC 345
Decision Date: 30 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the plaintiff, a former police officer, sought compensation for a neck injury sustained during his employment. The defendant, the SAS Trustee Corporation, was responsible for administering the workers' compensation claims of former police officers. The plaintiff argued that the surgery proposed to address his neck condition was reasonably necessary as a result of his injury, and that his condition was not part of a disease process. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of the injury, and whether the plaintiff's neck condition was the result of an injury or part of a disease process. The court also needed to interpret the meaning of the words "reasonably necessary as a result of injury" in the context of workers' compensation claims.

The court found that the plaintiff's neck condition was the result of an injury and that the proposed surgery was reasonably necessary as a result of that injury. The court held that the plaintiff's condition was not part of a disease process, and that the proposed surgery was necessary to address the injury-related condition. The court also found that the words "reasonably necessary as a result of injury" meant that the treatment must be necessary because of the injury, and that the injury must have caused or contributed to the need for the treatment. The court ordered that the plaintiff undergo the proposed surgical treatment, subject to certain conditions being met. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Provided that the differential diagnoses of ulnar neuropathy at each elbow and median neuropathy at the right wrist be excluded as effective causes of the plaintiff's pain (either by surgical intervention or by opinion following further testing), it is reasonably necessary that the plaintiff undergo surgical treatment between C3 and C7 as proposed

Liberty to the parties to apply on three days' notice as to any further orders being sought or as to any further argument concerning issues of proposed medical treatment

Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Perrin v SAS Trustee Corporation (No 2) [2015] NSWDC 345
Hearing dates:	28 – 30 October 2015
Date of orders:	30 October 2015
Decision date:	30 October 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Provided that the differential diagnoses of ulnar neuropathy at each elbow and median neuropathy at the right wrist be excluded as effective causes of the plaintiff's pain (either by surgical intervention or by opinion following further testing), it is reasonably necessary that the plaintiff undergo surgical treatment between C3 and C7 as proposed Liberty to the parties to apply on three days' notice as to any further orders being sought or as to any further argument concerning issues of proposed medical treatment Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings
Catchwords:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Police Superannuation – Whether surgery proposed to be practised on plaintiff’s neck reasonably necessary – Whether neck condition the result of an injury or part of a disease process – Meaning of the words “reasonably necessary as a result of injury”
Legislation Cited:	Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, s 12D Workers Compensation Act 1926, s 10 Workers Compensation Act 1987, ss 59, 60
Cases Cited:	Bartolo v Western Sydney Area Health Service (1997) 14 NSWCCR 233 Casey v NSW Police Department (1999) 18 NSWCCR 592 Commissioner of Police v Kennedy [2007] NSWCA 328; (2007) 5 DDCR 380 Pelama Pty Ltd v Blake (1988) 4 NSWCCR 264 Perrin v SASTC [2013] NSWDC 191 Perrin v SASTC [2014] NSWDC 203; (2014) 19 DCLR (NSW) 193 Rose v Health Commission (NSW) (1986) 2 NSWCCR 32
Texts Cited:	AJ Buzzard, Sir Edward Hughes, GL Hughes and JDB Wells, Medicine and Surgery for Lawyers (The Law Book Company, 1st ed ,1986) RJ Mobbs, P Rao Gollapudi and NK Chandran, “Outcome following anterior cervical discectomyin compensation patients” (2001) 8 (2) Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 124
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Scott David Perrin (Plaintiff) SAS Trustee Corporation (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P O’Rourke (Plaintiff) Mr D Stanton (Defendant) Solicitors: Walter Madden Jenkins (Plaintiff) SMK Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	RJ256/13
Publication restriction:	No