Return to Work Corporation of South Australia v Preedy

[2017] SASC 174

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Appeals to a Single Judge: Permission to Appeal in Private)

RETURN TO WORK CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v PREEDY

[2017] SASC 174

Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis

23 November 2017

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS - APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES

Application for permission to appeal.

At issue is whether impairments which do not result from the same trauma, and would therefore not be combined for the purposes of s 58(6) the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (the RTWA) for the purposes of calculating a non-economic loss payment, are nonetheless impairments resulting from the same injury or cause pursuant to s 22(8) of the RTWA.

Held per Kourakis CJ, granting permission to appeal:

1.  The applicant’s contention is arguable and of general importance.

Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) s22, s58, referred to.

RETURN TO WORK CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v PREEDY
[2017] SASC 174

Appeals to a Single Judge

1. KOURAKIS CJ:         This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal concerning the calculation of permanent impairment pursuant to s 22(8) of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (RTWA). At issue is whether impairments which do not result from the same trauma, and would therefore not be combined pursuant to s 58(6) of the RTWA for the purpose of calculating a non-economic loss payment, are nonetheless impairments resulting from the same injury or cause within the meaning of those terms in s 22(8) of the RTWA. The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative. The applicant contends that injuries should only be combined if they arise out of the same trauma. The question arises in its most acute form in the case of injuries sustained in the course of medical treatment which is other than an aggravation or exacerbation of the original injury.

2. The applicant’s contention is arguable.  The issue is of general importance.

3. I grant permission.