Ratcliffe v Raging Thunder Pty Ltd - [2010] QSC 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ratcliffe v Raging Thunder Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 60

PARTIES:

ROBERT RATCLIFFE
(Plaintiff/Respondent)
v
RAGING THUNDER PTY LTD (ACN 92 010 509 949)
(Defendant/Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

510 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

9 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

11 September 2009

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. Application is allowed.
2. That the plaintiff undergo a medical examination by a neurosurgeon, selecting from the following panel:-
Mr Eric Guazzo (Townsville);
Dr Terry Coyne; or
Dr Michael Weidmann.
3. I give the parties liberty to apply by giving three business days notice to the other party.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – application to compel a medical examination under s 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2001 – is such a procedure unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious – medical evidence to be adduced at a hearing – is further examination justified having regard to the defendant’s rights – reliance on differing medical opinions – does a neurosurgeon bring to the issues insights or skills which warrant the further examination

COUNSEL:

J.O. McClymont for the applicant/defendant
M Glen for respondent/plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

MacDonnells Law for the applicant/defendant
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the respondent/plaintiff

This is an application by the defendant seeking an order pursuant to s 282 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2001 (WCRA) to compel the plaintiff to undergo a medical examination by one of three nominated neurosurgeons. The plaintiff resists the application on the grounds that such an examination would be “unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious”.

Section 282 relevantly provides:-

“282 Worker to undergo medical examination
(1) An insurer or contributor may at any time ask the worker to undergo either or both of the following, whether at one time or at different times, at the expense of the insurer or contributor.

(a) A medical examination by a doctor to be selected by the worker from a panel of at least three doctors nominated in the request;

…

(2) The worker must comply with the request unless it would be unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious.

…”

The plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment with the defendant on 15 July 2005. He was engaged in the shared lifting of a raft when, without warning from the persons assisting, he was left to carry the whole weight of the raft. In his Statement of Claim he alleges he suffered the following injuries:-

(a) Injury to the lower back including:-

(i) disc protrusion at the L4-5 level;

(ii) annular tear at the L5-S1 level;

(iii) soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine region.

(b) Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood.

(c) Chronic Pain Disorder.

The plaintiff made a claim for statutory compensation which was allowed until 2 March 2007. For the purpose of the statutory claim, the plaintiff was examined by three orthopaedic surgeons (Drs Todd, Morrey and Thomas) and by three psychiatrists (Drs Kar, Lotz and Heffernan). All told nine medical reports were received from the medical…

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 Ratcliffe v Raging Thunder Pty Ltd 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: [2010] QSC 60
Decision Date: 9 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ratcliffe versus Raging Thunder Pty Ltd, the matter before the court involved an application under section 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2001, seeking to compel the plaintiff, Ratcliffe, to undergo a medical examination. The dispute arose from Ratcliffe's workers compensation claim against Raging Thunder Pty Ltd. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the application to compel a medical examination by a neurosurgeon was reasonable and not unnecessarily repetitious. The plaintiff had previously undergone a medical examination by a general practitioner, and the defendant argued that further examination by a neurosurgeon was unwarranted.

The court considered whether additional medical evidence from a neurosurgeon was justified, especially in light of the differing medical opinions presented. It was argued that a neurosurgeon might offer insights or skills that were not available through the previous examination, potentially impacting the outcome of the compensation claim. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's rights with the defendant's interest in obtaining comprehensive medical evidence. Ultimately, the court found that the application was reasonable and that the plaintiff should undergo a medical examination by a neurosurgeon. The court specified that the examination should be conducted by one of the listed neurosurgeons, providing flexibility for the parties to choose based on availability.

In its decision, the court allowed the application, ordering that the plaintiff, Ratcliffe, undergo a medical examination by a neurosurgeon from a specified panel. The court also granted the parties the liberty to apply to change the neurosurgeon three business days before the examination, providing some procedural flexibility. This decision ensures that the plaintiff's rights are protected while allowing the defendant to obtain necessary medical evidence for the workers compensation claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application is allowed.

2. That the plaintiff undergo a medical examination by a neurosurgeon, selecting from the following panel:-

Mr Eric Guazzo (Townsville);

Dr Terry Coyne; or

Dr Michael Weidmann.

3. I give the parties liberty to apply by giving three business days notice to the other party.

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.

CITATION:	Ratcliffe v Raging Thunder Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 60
PARTIES:	ROBERT RATCLIFFE (Plaintiff/Respondent) v RAGING THUNDER PTY LTD (ACN 92 010 509 949) (Defendant/Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	510 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	9 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	11 September 2009
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	1. Application is allowed. 2. That the plaintiff undergo a medical examination by a neurosurgeon, selecting from the following panel:- Mr Eric Guazzo (Townsville); Dr Terry Coyne; or Dr Michael Weidmann. 3. I give the parties liberty to apply by giving three business days notice to the other party.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – application to compel a medical examination under s 282 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2001 – is such a procedure unreasonable or unnecessarily repetitious – medical evidence to be adduced at a hearing – is further examination justified having regard to the defendant’s rights – reliance on differing medical opinions – does a neurosurgeon bring to the issues insights or skills which warrant the further examination
COUNSEL:	J.O. McClymont for the applicant/defendant M Glen for respondent/plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	MacDonnells Law for the applicant/defendant Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the respondent/plaintiff