St Luke's Anglicare v Handrinos - [2018] VSC 356

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2017 03642

ST LUKE’S ANGLICARE	Plaintiff
v
DR DENNIS HANDRINOS	First Defendant
and
DR PETER MILLINGTON	Second Defendant
and
MICHELE ANNE NICHOLAS	Third Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 June 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 June 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	St Luke’s Anglicare v Handrinos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 356

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Opinion of a Medical Panel – Assessment of degree of permanent psychiatric impairment – Unrelated injuries or causes – Whether jurisdictional error – Whether statement of reasons adequate – Proceeding dismissed – Accident Compensation Act 1985 ss 91, 98C – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 s 313.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Fleming QC with Ms S Gold	Hall & Wilcox
For the Third Defendant	Ms J Forbes QC with Mr P Czarnota	Shine Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Michele Nicholas, the third defendant in this proceeding, was employed by the plaintiff, St Luke’s Anglicare (St Luke’s) as a residential support worker from 2007. On 16 May 2010 a 13 year old boy in her care threatened her with a Molotov cocktail. He said that he was going to light it and blow her up. Although she was only a little shaken up at first, over time Ms Nicholas realised the seriousness of the threat. She took six months off work. After her return to work she endured some further incidents, including one resident threatening to pour boiling oil over her, and being assaulted with an iron bar.[1]
[1]This factual summary is drawn from the reasons for opinion of the Medical Panel dated 11 July 2017.

This judicial review proceeding concerns the assessment by a Medical Panel of the degree of psychiatric impairment suffered by Ms Nicholas as a result of these incidents. Ms Nicholas has been diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder related to her employment with St Luke’s.

The Medical Panel, constituted by the first and second defendants (the Panel), assessed Ms Nicholas to have a 35% psychiatric impairment directly related to her work for St Luke’s. St Luke’s contends that the Panel’s opinion involved legal error, and seeks orders quashing the opinion and remitting the matter for reconsideration by a differently constituted Medical Panel.

For the reasons that follow I am not persuaded that the Panel’s opinion involved any jurisdictional error or other error of law.

Factual background

It was common ground that Ms Nicholas ceased working for St Luke’s in July 2011. She made a workers compensation claim in 2011, which was accepted. In July 2015 she made a separate claim for payment of a lump sum impairment benefit under s 98C of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (ACA).

In January 2017 Ms Nicholas was assessed by Dr Stephen Stern, a psychiatrist and independent medical examiner engaged by St Luke’s claims…

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 St Luke's Anglicare v Handrinos 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: [2018] VSC 356
Decision Date: 28 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Luke's Anglicare sought judicial review of a decision made by a Medical Panel under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The dispute centred around the Panel's assessment of the degree of permanent psychiatric impairment for the applicant, Handrinos, who suffered from multiple psychiatric conditions. The court was asked to determine whether the Panel had made a jurisdictional error and if the reasons provided were adequate.

The central legal issues involved whether the Panel erred in considering unrelated injuries or causes when assessing Handrinos's psychiatric impairment. The court also examined whether the Panel provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which is required under the legislation. The challenge was whether the Panel's assessment process complied with the statutory provisions and whether the reasons given were enough to justify the outcome.

The court found that the Panel had not made a jurisdictional error in its assessment of the psychiatric impairment. It held that the Panel appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the unrelated injuries, in making its decision. The court further determined that the reasons provided by the Panel were adequate and met the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Panel's decision was lawful and properly reasoned.

Orders