Roads and Maritime Services v Rodger Wilson - [2016] NSWSC 1499

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roads and Maritime Services v Rodger Wilson [2016] NSWSC 1499
Hearing dates: 14 October 2016
Date of orders: 14 October 2016
Decision date: 14 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
1. Declare pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act (NSW) that the Medical Assessment Certificate and statement of reasons for decision of the third defendant issued on 8 April 2016 are void and of no effect.

2. The medical dispute is remitted to the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales for referral to a Medical Appeal Panel pursuant to s 328(1) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) to determine the appeal from the Medical Assessment Certificate of Dr Tim Anderson issued 9 November 2015, according to law.
3. The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings.
Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW – workers’ compensation – appeal against decision of Appeal Panel – Appeal Panel set aside Medical Assessment Certificate of approved medical specialist – scope of Appeal Panel to re-assess whole person impairment – whether jurisdiction of Appeal Panel to reissue a Medical Assessment Certificate is limited to only those portions of assessment which were disputed on appeal – distinction between decision to revoke and decision to issue a new certificate – Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1988 (NSW), ss 287, 278
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Commission Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284
Drosd v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2016] NSWSC 1053
New South Wales Police Force v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1792
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Roads and Maritime Services (plaintiff)
Rodger Wilson (1st defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Eraine Grotte (plaintiff)
No appearance (1st defendant)
Solicitors:
Lea Armstrong, Crown Solicitors Office

File Number(s): 2016/154176

Judgment

This is a claim by the plaintiff, as employer, for judicial review of a decision of an Appeal Panel made under s 328 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act1998 (NSW) (“the 1998 Act”). The first defendant, Mr Wilson, took no part in the hearing of the plaintiff’s summons and consequently the Court has not had the benefit of a contradictor of the plaintiff’s submissions. The Workers Compensation Commission and the members of the Appeal Panel are second and third defendants respectively. They filed submitting appearances.
Mr Wilson injured his right ankle on 16 May 2008 when he stepped out of the cab of a tow truck on Sydney Harbour Bridge. His right foot landed on a raised lane marker of a type known as a "cat’s eye". This caused an inversion injury to the ankle. “Inversion" describes the rotation of the sole of his foot towards the midline of his body and the top or instep of the…

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 Roads and Maritime Services v Rodger Wilson 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: [2016] NSWSC 1499
Decision Date: 14 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roads and Maritime Services v Rodger Wilson involves the appellant, the Roads and Maritime Services, appealing against a decision of the respondent, the Appeal Panel, which set aside a Medical Assessment Certificate of an approved medical specialist. The dispute centres on the scope of the Appeal Panel’s authority to re-assess whole person impairment and the extent to which they can reissue a Medical Assessment Certificate. Specifically, the appeal questions whether the jurisdiction of the Appeal Panel is limited to only those portions of the assessment that were disputed on appeal. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent of the Appeal Panel's authority in reissuing a Medical Assessment Certificate. The court had to determine whether the Panel's jurisdiction to reissue the certificate was confined to the disputed aspects of the original assessment or if it could extend to the entire assessment. The distinction between the decision to revoke and the decision to issue a new certificate was also crucial, as it could impact the Panel's ability to make comprehensive re-assessments. The interpretation of sections 287 and 278 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) was key to resolving this issue.

The court found that the Appeal Panel had the authority to re-assess the whole person impairment and to issue a new Medical Assessment Certificate. The court clarified that the distinction between revoking and issuing a new certificate did not limit the Panel's jurisdiction to only the disputed portions of the original assessment. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Panel had acted within its jurisdiction under the relevant statutory provisions. This decision affirmed the broad scope of the Panel’s authority in re-assessments and reissuing certificates, ensuring that the Panel can comprehensively review the entire assessment when necessary.

Orders