Prisk v Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (No 2)

In the matter of Prisk v Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (No 2), the Federal Circuit Court was tasked with adjudicating on a claim for compensation for further hearing loss by the worker, Mr Prisk, against the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. The central dispute involved whether the worker's hearing loss, which was deemed to have occurred on 6 June 2006, qualified for compensation under section 17 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court needed to address whether prior assessments by Medical Panels under section 131 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and section 122 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, as well as a previous unsuccessful claim for the cost of hearing aids, impacted the current claim.

The court considered several legal issues, including the applicability of the deeming provision under section 17 of the 1987 Act to the worker's hearing loss, the effect of prior Medical Panel assessments on the current claim, and whether the prior unsuccessful claim for hearing aid costs constituted an estoppel or res judicata. The court also needed to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, if any, under section 66 of the 1987 Act for the deemed injury. Furthermore, the court had to consider the costs associated with the arbitration and the appeal, including whether the matter was complex and if additional allowances for costs were warranted.

The court found that the worker's hearing loss was indeed compensable under section 17 of the 1987 Act. It held that the prior Medical Panel assessments did not preclude the current claim, and the previous unsuccessful claim for hearing aid costs did not act as an estoppel. The court revoked the Arbitrator's prior determinations and ordered that the Department pay the worker $14,000 as lump sum compensation for 11% whole person impairment. The court also ordered the Department to pay the worker's costs of the arbitration and the Medical Appeal Panel, with an additional allowance for the complexity of the matter. The case was remitted to the same Arbitrator to determine the worker's entitlement to compensation under section 67 of the 1987 Act.