Popovic v Liverpool City Council - [2017] NSWWCCPD 49

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:	Popovic v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWWCCPD 49
APPELLANT:	Ruzica Popovic
RESPONDENT:	Liverpool City Council
INSURER:	Self-insurer
FILE NUMBER:	A1-1837/17
ARBITRATOR:	Mr P Sweeney
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:	8 August 2017
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	10 November 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Whether a ‘general order’ pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 satisfies the monetary threshold for an appeal; 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Keating
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:	Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers
Respondent:	Bartier Perry Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The monetary thresholds in s 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 have not been met and there is no right of appeal.

INTRODUCTION

The worker was employed as an early childhood education officer. Her duties required her to use her hands repetitively which, she alleged, caused a physical injury or an aggravation of a pre-existing disease condition. It is also alleged that she suffered a secondary psychological injury. The Arbitrator concluded that the worker had suffered such injuries but that the effects of both injuries ceased on 10 May 2017. The employer was ordered to pay the worker’s hospital and medical expenses in respect of the injury as found.
This appeal challenges the Arbitrator’s findings that the effects of the injuries ceased on 10 May 2017. As the case unfolded before the Arbitrator, the claim for weekly compensation was abandoned and the matter proceeded only in respect of the hospital and medical treatment. The worker sought a general order for the payment of her hospital and medical expenses, without particularisation and clarification of the amount of compensation sought.
This appeal concerns whether the amount of compensation at issue on the appeal satisfies the monetary threshold required by 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).

BACKGROUND

The appellant, Mrs Popovic, was employed by the respondent, Liverpool City Council (the Council). She worked with children in the 0-3 age group at the Warwick Farm Early Education and Care Centre.
Mrs Popovic claimed that she was required to change nappies frequently throughout the day and that this task resulted in injuries to her thumbs. On 11 May 2016, Mrs Popovic submitted a WorkCover NSW Certificate of Capacity issued by Dr Kalid. He diagnosed that she suffered from “? Bilateral Carpal Tunnel Syndrome”. He certified her fit for duties for 8 hours a day for 3 days a week during the period of 11 May 2016 to 11 June 2016. He placed a limitation on her capacity to lift and carry to 2.5 kg. It appears that a claim was made for compensation in accordance with that medical certificate, although that is not readily apparent from the documents filed.
On 13 May 2016, the Council issued a notice pursuant to s 267(1) of the 1998 Act, declining…

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 Popovic v Liverpool City Council 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: [2017] NSWWCCPD 49
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Popovic v Liverpool City Council, the dispute centered on the validity of an appeal against a decision made under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The appellant sought to appeal a ‘general order’ made by the respondent council, which had refused to compensate him for injuries sustained at work. The decision was brought before the court to determine whether the monetary thresholds outlined in section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 were satisfied, thereby granting the right to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a ‘general order’ issued under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 met the statutory criteria set out in section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which establishes the monetary thresholds for an appeal. The court had to assess if the refusal of compensation constituted a decision that was financially significant enough to warrant an appeal.

The court examined the statutory provisions and concluded that the ‘general order’ did not meet the monetary criteria necessary to invoke the right to appeal. The decision was not of a financial magnitude that triggered the appeal provisions outlined in section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Consequently, the court held that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements for an appeal, and no such right existed. The decision was therefore upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the court determined that the monetary thresholds in section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 had not been met, and as such, there was no right of appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the council was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The monetary thresholds in s 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 have not been met and there is no right of appeal.

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.