| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER | |
CITATION: | Shankar v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Limited [2021] NSWPICPD 18 |
APPELLANT: | Ram Shankar |
RESPONDENT: | Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Limited |
INSURER: | Employers Mutual NSW Limited |
FILE NUMBER: | A1-6336/20 |
MEMBER: | Mr J Harris |
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION: | 4 December 2020 |
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 16 June 2021 |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION – leave to appeal an interlocutory decision – monetary threshold to appeal – assessment of permanent impairment – whether a Member can decline to refer a body part for assessment by a medical assessor |
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC |
HEARING: | On the papers |
REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: |
| Mr B McManamey, counsel | |
| Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers | |
| Respondent: | |
| Mr N Maley, solicitor | |
| Holman Webb Lawyers | |
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. Leave to appeal is granted. |
| 2. The Certificate of Determination dated 4 December 2020 is varied as follows: (a) Add to paragraph [6] against the heading “Body Parts Referred” after the words “cervical spine” the words “left upper extremity”. | |
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) and if leave is granted, to appeal a decision by an Arbitrator made on 4 December 2020, declining to refer for assessment by an Approved Medical Specialist (AMS) the appellant’s left upper extremity.
For the reasons that follow, leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is allowed.
BACKGROUND
In order to understand the ex tempore decision of the Arbitrator, it is necessary to set out in some detail the appellant’s original claim and the respondent’s response thereto.
The appellant, Mr Shankar, filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the former Workers Compensation Commission, registered on 2 November 2020.
In the ARD he alleged injury against Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Limited (the respondent) as follows:
(a) 22 October 2010 – cervical spine, right upper extremity – total whole person impairment [WPI] percentage 11%;
(b) 7 January 2015 – disease injury, and
(c) 7 July 2015 – cervical spine, left upper extremity and right extremity – WPI 17%.[1]
[1] ARD, pp 8–9.
The appellant gave the following description of injury:
“On or around 22 December 2010 the Worker was moving approximately 500 boxes containing brake discs weighing approximately 10kg each. Following this task he started feeling pain in his neck and shoulders.
On 6 August 2013, the Worker had returned to work and was engaged in picking and packing when he was asked to cut steel bolts approximately 10mm [thick] using a bolt cutter. The bolt cutters provided were either blunt and/or not fit for purpose and as a result the worker was required to apply excessive force on a repetitive basis to complete the task. He noticed pain in his left shoulder, elbow and his neck.
The worker ceased work on 7 January 2015 as a result of his injuries and increased symptoms.
It is submitted that the Worker has sustained injury…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Shankar v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Limited 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWPICPD 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Senior Arbitrator erred in dismissing the proceedings based on the perceived persuasiveness of the medical evidence. According to the Workers Compensation Acts, the assessment of a "medical dispute" is reserved for an Accredited Medical Specialist (AMS). The Deputy President noted that it was not within the Senior Arbitrator's jurisdiction to dismiss the claim on the basis of the perceived viability of the permanent impairment claim. The court relied on the High Court's decision in Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Limited v Kocak, which underscored the role of a Medical Panel to form its own opinion on a medical question, not to choose between competing arguments or opinions. The court further highlighted that the assessment by the AMS is based on their own medical expertise and experience, and cannot be predetermined.
The Deputy President concluded that the Senior Arbitrator made a similar error by implicitly assuming that the evidence of the qualified specialists would prevail, thereby overstepping her jurisdiction. The court held that the Arbitrator did not have the jurisdiction to assess the degree of permanent impairment and, therefore, could not determine that the degree of permanent impairment was 0%. The court set aside the decision of the Senior Arbitrator and remitted the matter for further consideration in light of these findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.