Sahin v Victorian WorkCover Authority - [2024] VSC 241

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2023 01732

CANER SAHIN	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 May 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sahin v Victorian WorkCover Authority & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 241

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Workplace injury – Opinion of Medical Panel on medical questions referred by County Court hearing serious injury application – Whether Medical Panel failed to consider relevant consideration – Whether Medical Panel failed to give consideration to a chronic pain syndrome of psychiatric origin – Opinion of Medical Panel quashed – Appeal allowed – Victorian WorkCover Authority v Putrus [2023] VSCA 28; Victorian WorkCover Authority v Jamali [2023] VSCA 240.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr E Makowski	Arnold Thomas & Becker Lawyers
For the Defendant	Ms F Spencer SC Mr M Kenneally	Russel Kennedy

HIS HONOUR:

In this proceeding the plaintiff, Mr Sahin, seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the opinion (‘the opinion’) of a medical panel (‘the Panel’) comprising the second to sixth defendants.

The Panel concluded that:

(a) Mr Sahin had injured his back in an incident at work on 6 or 7 December 2017 (‘the incident injury’) but that injury had resolved by the time the Panel conducted its examination;

(b) Mr Sahin’s back injury at the time of its examination did not result from and was not materially contributed to by any injury at work; and

(c) Mr Sahin was suffering from a mild adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood and that that adjustment disorder had been materially contributed to by the incident injury, but that it was not severe enough to impede his ability to work.

Mr Sahin’s originating motion contains four grounds on which it is alleged the opinion should be quashed, but as the argument was developed at hearing, grounds 1 to 3 essentially boiled down to a single contention. Mr Sahin contends that the Panel erred because it:

(a) had failed to consider or properly consider the possibility that the nature of Mr Sahin’s work from May 2014 and up to the time of the incident injury had materially contributed to his back injury (‘the nature of employment contention’); and

(b) had failed to give consideration to a chronic pain syndrome of psychiatric origin (‘the chronic pain syndrome contention’).

For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that Mr Sahin has established the chronic pain syndrome contention and for that reason it is appropriate to grant orders quashing the opinion of the Panel and remitting the medical questions in respect of which the opinion was given to a differently constituted medical panel to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Factual background

Mr Sahin was employed by Car Servicing and You Pty Ltd in…

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 Sahin v Victorian WorkCover Authority 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: [2024] VSC 241
Decision Date: 17 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sahin v Victorian WorkCover Authority, the appellant, Sahin, sought judicial review of a decision by the Victorian WorkCover Authority concerning his entitlement to compensation for a workplace injury. The central issue in the case was whether the Medical Panel appointed by the Authority had properly considered all relevant factors in assessing Sahin’s claim, particularly whether they had adequately addressed his chronic pain syndrome of psychiatric origin. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the Medical Panel's assessment was flawed due to an omission in considering all relevant factors, specifically the chronic pain syndrome of psychiatric origin. The court had to examine whether this omission rendered the decision unreasonable under the principles of administrative law. The court was also required to assess whether the decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and whether the Panel had correctly applied the relevant legal standards in its assessment.

The Supreme Court found that the Medical Panel had indeed failed to consider the relevant chronic pain syndrome of psychiatric origin, which was a crucial factor in the assessment of Sahin’s injury. The court held that this omission rendered the Panel’s opinion unreasonable. The court quashed the Panel's decision and allowed Sahin's appeal, drawing on precedents from similar cases such as Victorian WorkCover Authority v Putrus and Victorian WorkCover Authority v Jamali. The court's decision emphasised the necessity for Medical Panels to thoroughly consider all relevant factors when making their assessments.

In light of the findings, the court ordered the matter to be remitted back to the WorkCover Authority for reconsideration by a different Medical Panel, ensuring that all relevant factors, including Sahin's chronic pain syndrome of psychiatric origin, were properly considered.

Orders