Ryan v Disler - [2021] VSC 411

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2019 05899

MICHAEL RYAN	Plaintiff
v
PETER DISLER (and other according to the attached schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 March 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 July 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ryan v Disler
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 411

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Medical Panel – Whether failure to take into account relevant considerations – Reliance on worker’s medical history given to the Panel – Whether adequate reasons provided.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr C Hangay	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
For the Sixth Defendant	Ms M Norton	Thomson Geer

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Mr Michael Ryan, seeks judicial review of a Medical Panel opinion (‘the Medical Panel’ or ‘the Panel’), dated 7 November 2019 (‘the Opinion’). The Opinion answered three medical questions concerning whether Mr Ryan had suffered an injury in the course of employment with the sixth defendant, Oskar Air Products Pty Ltd[1] (‘the employer’) in North Laverton. He had worked there as a store person/trades assistant, truck driver and forklift operator since 2010. The work included lifting items weighing 20 kg and heavy manual handling work. He is now aged 56. He had been employed in the sheet metal industry for over 30 years, including performing general steel fabrication work, site work, installing ducts and machinery, truck driving and forklift operating.
[1]The employer is described in some documents as Williamstown Sheetmetal Pty Ltd.

Mr Ryan’s grounds for judicial review are:

(a) The Panel made a jurisdictional error because it did not take into account or give proper, genuine, and realistic consideration to his history of pain, weakness and symptoms experienced since 8 December 2014 as recorded in his affidavit of 25 June 2019, four affidavits of lay witnesses and the opinion of his treating neurosurgeon, Mr Patrick Lo; and

(b) the Panel failed to provide adequate reasons for its Opinion as its reasons did not identify why it reached its conclusion notwithstanding other evidence, namely Mr Lo’s and the lay witness affidavits.

The Medical Panel comprised a consultant psychiatrist, a second psychiatrist, a rehabilitation physician, an orthopaedic surgeon and a neurosurgeon.

The case particularly focuses on the Panel’s consideration of two incidents affecting Mr Ryan, which I will next describe.

The incident at work

On 8 December 2014, Mr Ryan and the owner of the business at which he worked while moving a platform ladder, which was approximately four metres above ground level, dislodged a pallet racking beam that protruded from a pallet. That beam fell and struck Mr Ryan on top of his head. The beam weighed between 10 and 15 kg, and he was knocked to the ground,[2] although he did not lose consciousness. He tried to stand up, became unsteady and fell backwards onto his buttocks.[3] He suffered a small cut to his head, pain in his head and neck, numbness in his…

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 Ryan v Disler

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Disler [2021] VSC 411
Case: [2021] VSC 411
Decision Date: 12 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ryan sought judicial review of a decision made by Disler, concerning the assessment of his entitlement to compensation for a work-related injury. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred on whether the decision-maker had failed to take into account relevant considerations and whether the reliance on the worker's medical history, as presented to the Panel, was justified. Additionally, the adequacy of the reasons provided for the decision was scrutinised.

The court had to determine if the decision-maker had indeed overlooked relevant considerations and whether the reliance on the worker's medical history, given to the Panel, was appropriate. Furthermore, the court examined whether the reasons provided for the decision were sufficient and adequately explained the decision-making process.

The court found that the decision-maker had indeed failed to consider certain relevant factors and that the reliance on the worker's medical history, as presented to the Panel, was not adequately justified. The reasons provided for the decision were deemed insufficient as they did not adequately explain the decision-making process. Consequently, the court allowed the application for judicial review, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter back to the original decision-maker for reconsideration.

Orders