ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Serious injury application under s 134AB(16)(b) of Accident Compensation Act 1985 – Application dismissed by County Court – Appeal to Court of Appeal under s 134AC of the Act – Whether permanent severe mental or behavioural disturbance or disorder consequent on physical injury in course of employment – Appeal allowed and leave granted to commence common law proceeding.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
Appellant
Mr J Kennan SC with Mr A Ingram
Holding Redlich
Respondent
Mr R Gorton QC with Mr J Gorton
Wisewoulds
WARREN CJ
HARGRAVE AJA:
Parties and introduction
The appellant Mirsada Sejranovic was born in Bosnia in 1957. She migrated to Australia in 1993. In May 1994, the appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision (‘the 1994 collision’). The appellant claimed at the time that her injuries caused her to suffer pain in her neck, shoulders, arms and hands, and that she suffered consequent psychological symptoms. She made a claim for compensation under the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) in respect of her injuries (the ‘TAC claim’).
In early 1995, while her TAC claim was being considered, the appellant commenced employment with the respondent, cleaning office buildings in the city of Melbourne. In October 1996, the appellant’s TAC claim was settled. She was paid about $12,000 together with a contribution towards her legal costs. Shortly prior to the settlement, the appellant was examined in June 1996 by a neurosurgeon at the request of her solicitors. She told the neurosurgeon that she suffered continuing pain in her neck, shoulders, arms and legs. The resulting report prepared by the neurosurgeon was obviously relied upon by the appellant’s solicitors in negotiating a settlement of her TAC claim.
The appellant also told medical practitioners who examined her in connection with the TAC claim that she was suffering from some mental responses to her physical injuries, including nightmares, anxiety and depression. These were noted in various medical and psychiatric reports at the time, and these reports must also have been taken into account in arriving at the settlement figure for the TAC claim.
The appellant now contends that her symptoms arising from the 1994 collision were limited to some pain in her neck and that, well prior to her being injured in the course of employment with the respondent, her neck pain had resolved completely. Further, she does not recall any of her mental problems arising from the injury suffered by her in the 1994 collision, and denies that any problems which she did experience at that time were persisting at the time she was injured in the course of her employment with the respondent.
The appellant contends that she first noticed pain arising from her work duties some…
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 Sejranovic v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sejranovic v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 108
Case
[2009] VSCA 108
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The County Court was called upon to decide an appeal from an earlier determination in the Sejranovic v Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd case. The primary dispute centred on the eligibility of Mr Sejranovic for compensation under section 134AB(16)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The applicant argued that his physical injury sustained during employment resulted in a permanent severe mental or behavioural disturbance or disorder. The County Court had dismissed his application, finding that his mental condition was not a consequence of the physical injury. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr Sejranovic appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the County Court's decision and gain permission to pursue a common law claim.
The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the County Court erred in its interpretation of the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. Specifically, the appeal focused on whether Mr Sejranovic's mental condition was indeed a consequence of his physical injury, as required by the statute. The Court needed to determine whether the County Court's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. Additionally, the Court of Appeal had to decide if the applicant should be granted leave to initiate common law proceedings.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the County Court's decision was incorrect. The appellate court concluded that the evidence did support a causal link between the physical injury and the mental condition. The Court of Appeal held that the County Court had not adequately considered the medical evidence and the statutory requirements. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and Mr Sejranovic was granted leave to commence common law proceedings against Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the evidence did establish a causal connection between the physical injury and the mental condition, which was sufficient to warrant a new hearing of the case.