Phan v Elcon Cables Pty Ltd t/as Elcon Cable Processors

Case [2024] NSWPIC 634


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Phan v Elcon Cables Pty Ltd t/as Elcon Cable Processors [2024] NSWPIC 634
APPLICANT: Thi Le Tien Phan
RESPONDENT: Elcon Cables Pty Ltd t/as Elcon Cable Processors
MEMBER: Kathryn Camp
DATE OF DECISION: 8 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act); Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); section 57 of the PIC Act; reconsideration application; applicant sustained a lumbar spine injury which was assessed at 12% whole person impairment in a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); the applicant appealed the MAC to a Medical Appeal Panel which confirmed the MAC; the former Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) issued a Certificate of Determination (COD) confirming the MAC and entitlement to section 66 of the 1987 Act; the applicant’s condition deteriorated post-establishment of the Personal Injury Commission (Commission); jurisdiction of the Commission to reconsider former WCC decisions for the limited basis of a threshold dispute; Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice v Cannell considered and applied; Held – the applicant’s application for reconsideration of the COD dismissed.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1.     The applicant’s application is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

  1. This matter concerns an application for reconsideration, pursuant to s 57(1) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act), of a Certificate of Determination (COD) of the former Workers Compensation Commission (WCC). In particular, it concerns an application for reconsideration to allow for a further medical assessment by a Medical Assessor in circumstances where the original medical assessment was subject to a Medical Appeal Panel (MAP) decision and a COD giving effect to that decision.

  2. For the reasons discussed below, the application is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

  1. On 20 May 2011, the applicant injured her lower back in the course of her employment with the respondent as a factory worker.

  2. On 17 October 2014, the applicant underwent L4/5 partial laminectomy at the hands of Dr Papantoniou. It is accepted that this surgery was a result of the accepted injury in 2011. The costs of surgery was paid by the respondent.

  3. On 10 March 2016, the former WCC issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) of the applicant’s whole person impairment in respect of injury on 20 May 2011. The assessment was undertaken by Dr Meakin. Dr Meakin assessed the applicant with 12% whole person impairment in respect of the injury, comprising of 12% for her lumbar spine and 0% for scarring.

  4. On 6 April 2016, the applicant appealed the MAC pursuant to s 327 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act). The basis of the appeal concerned an alleged application of incorrect criteria and a demonstrable error in the MAC, in relation to the assessment of scarring. A delegate of the Registrar of the WCC issued a decision allowing the appeal to proceed to a MAP.

  5. On 21 June 2016, the MAP issued a decision confirming the MAC.

  6. On 26 July 2016, Deputy Registrar and Arbitrator Annette Farrell through the WCC issued a COD. The…

Continue reading Phan v Elcon Cables Pty Ltd t/as Elcon Cable Processors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Phan v Elcon Cables Pty Ltd t/as Elcon Cable Processors [2024] NSWPIC 634
Case
[2024] NSWPIC 634
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Phan v Elcon Cables Pty Ltd t/as Elcon Cable Processors, the dispute involved a worker who had sustained a lumbar spine injury, assessed at 12% whole person impairment in a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC). The injury was initially assessed following a work-related incident, and subsequent appeals and reviews upheld this assessment. The worker sought reconsideration of a Certificate of Determination (COD) issued by the former Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) confirming the MAC and entitlement to section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The Personal Injury Commission (Commission) was asked to reconsider this decision based on the threshold dispute of whether the Commission had jurisdiction to reconsider former WCC decisions.

The legal issues before the court centred on the jurisdictional limits of the Personal Injury Commission to reconsider former WCC decisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Commission had the authority to reconsider the COD on the basis of a threshold dispute, and whether the established precedent from Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice v Cannell applied in this context. The court also had to consider the implications of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 (PIC Act) and how it interacted with the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in this jurisdictional context.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the PIC Act and the 1987 Act, focusing on section 57 of the PIC Act which outlines the conditions for reconsideration. Applying the principles from Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice v Cannell, the court found that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to reconsider the former WCC decisions for the limited basis of a threshold dispute. The court concluded that the Commission's power to reconsider was constrained by the legislative intent, and the worker's application for reconsideration of the COD was dismissed. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the established legal precedents.

The final orders of the court dismissed the worker's application for reconsideration of the Certificate of Determination. The court confirmed that the Commission lacked the jurisdiction to reconsider the former WCC decisions on the basis of a threshold dispute, adhering to the statutory framework and the legal precedents.

Orders

Orders of the court

includes a purported decision or a refusal or failure to make a decision.

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.