Legal Research
Cases
Pulling v Yarra Ranges Shire Council

Pulling v Yarra Ranges Shire Council

Link copied

Case Copied 16 May 2018 72 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2017 02533

VICKI ELIZABETH PULLING	Appellant
v
YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 May 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Pulling v Yarra Ranges Shire Council
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 248

---

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – stress-related migraine headaches and chest pains – whether injury arising out of or in the course of any employment – whether wholly or predominantly caused by management action – relevance and admissibility of patient’s history in medical reports – whether admissible as exception to hearsay rule as admissible for non-hearsay purpose of providing the basis for medical opinions – whether properly disregarded entirely on grounds that doctors did not have ‘full story’ – proper consideration of causation test in case of mental injuries – whether magistrate erred in law in rejecting claim for compensation – whether considered whole of employment and all of its incidents – whether considered worker’s employment over time and her perception of actual workplace stressors – whether considered whether increased regularity and severity of symptoms represented aggravation of existing injury – whether considered potential overlap between the injury and its symptoms and consequences – ‘arising out of or in the course of any employment’, ‘mental injury’, ‘wholly’, ‘predominantly’, ‘management action’ – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 60(1), Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) ss 39(1) and 40(1)(a), Magistrates Court Act 1989 (Vic) s 109(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellant	Mr J P Gorton QC with Mr C Hangay	Zaparas Lawyers
For the respondent	Mr S A O’Meara QC with Ms F C Spencer	Thomson Geer

HIS HONOUR:

Vicki Pulling was employed as a technical and administrative support officer with Yarra Ranges Shire Council. She contended that, over time, she suffered from a work-related stress injury with symptoms of migraine headaches and chest pains causing her to stop work in August 2015. When the Council refused her claim for weekly payments and medical and like expenses under ss 39(1) and 40(1)(a) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) (‘the Act’), Ms Pulling sought an order from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria that it pay her these amounts.

The magistrate dismissed her claim. In summary, under s 39(1) of the Act his Honour found that the migraine headaches and chest pains were symptomatic of a long-standing condition that was not work-related. Alternatively, his Honour decided that any injury was not compensable under s 40(1)(a) because it was wholly or predominantly caused by management action which the Council was undertaking, being a review of Ms Pulling’s work area.

Ms Pulling now appeals against the magistrate’s decision on grounds of error of law under s 109(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic).

MS PULLING’S EMPLOYMENT WITH COUNCIL

Ms Pulling began working for the Council in 1996. She experienced an episode…

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 Pulling v Yarra Ranges Shire 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: [2018] VSC 248
Decision Date: 16 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Mr Pulling, appealed a decision of the respondent, the Yarra Ranges Shire Council, to refuse a claim for workers’ compensation. The application was heard by the County Court of Victoria, where it was determined that the appeal was to be dismissed. The applicant alleged that he had suffered stress-related migraine headaches and chest pains as a result of his employment with the respondent, which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The respondent denied that the injuries were work-related and rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation.

The legal issues in this case centred on the definition of an injury and whether it arose out of or in the course of any employment, as well as the relevance and admissibility of the applicant’s history in medical reports. The court considered whether the magistrate had erred in law by rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation, whether the whole of the employment and all of its incidents were considered, and whether the worker’s perception of actual workplace stressors were taken into account. Additionally, the court examined whether the potential overlap between the injury and its symptoms and consequences was properly considered.

The County Court found that the magistrate had not erred in law in rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation. The court held that the applicant had failed to establish that the injuries were wholly or predominantly caused by management action, and that the magistrate had considered the whole of the employment and all of its incidents, as well as the worker’s perception of actual workplace stressors. The court also found that the magistrate had properly considered the potential overlap between the injury and its symptoms and consequences. The court further held that the magistrate had considered the applicant’s history in the medical reports, but that this was not the sole basis for the decision to reject the claim for compensation. The court concluded that the magistrate had not erred in law and dismissed the appeal.

The court did not make any specific orders in this case, as the appeal was dismissed. The County Court found that the magistrate’s decision to reject the applicant’s claim for compensation was legally sound, and that the applicant had failed to establish that the injuries were work-related. The applicant was therefore not entitled to compensation for the alleged injuries.

Orders