Rafati v Victorian WorkCover Authority - [2020] VSC 444

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 04322

MOJTABA RAFATI	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 May 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 July 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rafati v Victorian WorkCover Authority
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 444 (revised on 23 July 2020)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Medical Panel – Jurisdictional Error – Whether the Medical Panel mistook or misinterpreted the findings of a previous medical panel – Whether the mistake amounted to jurisdictional error – Whether the work-caused aggravation materially contribute to the plaintiff’s present condition – Error of law – Decision quashed – Accident Compensation Act 1985 s 134AB – Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480 – Chang v Neill [2019] VSCA 151.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A G Uren QC with Mr L B R Allan	Arnold Thomas & Becker Pty Ltd
For the First Defendant	Mr J P Gorton QC with Ms M Norton	Lander & Rogers
For the Second to Sixth Defendant	No appearance	Victorian Government Solicitor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Did the Medical Panel mistake or misinterpret the findings of a previous panel by finding that the previous medical panel had decided the plaintiff’s work had caused an aggravation of symptoms of osteoarthritis of his hands?............................................................................... 3

Plaintiff’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 5
First defendant’s submissions..................................................................................................... 6
Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 7

Did the mistake amount to a jurisdictional error?...................................................................... 9

Plaintiff’s submissions.................................................................................................................. 9
First defendant’s submissions................................................................................................... 11
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 12

Is the Medical Panel’s finding, that the plaintiff suffered from hand symptoms prior to and unconnected with his employment, a finding infected by jurisdictional error?.......... 15

Is the Panel’s finding, that the work caused aggravation of his hand arthritis had ceased but that work activities did not materially contribute to the present condition of his hands, infected by jurisdictional error or an error of law?................................................................................... 15

Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................ 15
First defendant’s submissions................................................................................................... 16
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 17

Is the Medical Panel’s finding, that the present medical condition of the plaintiff’s hands was not at least materially contributed to by his work activities, infected by jurisdictional error? 18

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 18

HER HONOUR:

In this proceeding, Mr Rafati, the plaintiff, seeks orders quashing the determination of a medical panel in respect of its assessment of his hands. It is common ground that he had osteoarthritis in his hands prior to commencing employment. There is a dispute about whether there is a work-related aggravation injury. The plaintiff says work caused his asymptomatic arthritis to become symptomatic and accordingly he has a work-related aggravation injury. The Medical Panel found that there was no material contribution of the plaintiff’s alleged work-related injuries to his pre-existing osteoarthritis.

Summary

The plaintiff’s amended originating motion filed 19 May 2020 contains four grounds of review. The four issues in dispute and…

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.

Continue reading Rafati v Victorian WorkCover Authority

Details

AGLC: Rafati v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2020] VSC 444
Case: [2020] VSC 444
Decision Date: 22 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Rafati, sought judicial review of a decision by the Victorian WorkCover Authority, which found that the aggravation of his pre-existing back condition was not caused by his employment. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court was tasked with determining whether the Authority's decision contained a jurisdictional error. The primary issue before the court was whether the Medical Panel had made a mistake in understanding or interpreting the findings of a previous medical panel, and if that error amounted to a jurisdictional error. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the work-caused aggravation materially contributed to the plaintiff’s present condition.

The court held that the Medical Panel had indeed made a mistake in interpreting the findings of the previous medical panel, which amounted to a jurisdictional error. The court found that the error was not merely an error of fact, but an error of law that affected the jurisdiction of the panel. The court referred to Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak and Chang v Neill to support its conclusion that such a jurisdictional error warranted the quashing of the decision. The court found that the Medical Panel had failed to consider the totality of the evidence and had not correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions.

As a result of the jurisdictional error, the court quashed the decision of the Medical Panel. The court's decision highlights the importance of correctly interpreting previous medical findings and the application of the relevant statutory provisions in making determinations about work-related injuries. The court's decision serves as a reminder to tribunals and decision-makers to carefully consider all relevant evidence and apply the law correctly in their decision-making processes.

Orders