Stagg v North - [2014] QSC 8

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stagg v North & Ors [2014] QSC 8

PARTIES:

FIONA MERYL STAGG

(Applicant)

v

DR J NORTH, DR W SUGARS AND DR P SHARWOOD CONSTITUTING THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT TRIBUNAL - ORTHOPAEDIC

(First Respondent)

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9916 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2014

JUDGE:

Philip McMurdo J

ORDER:

The originating application is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – UNREASONABLENESS – the applicant claimed to have suffered a work related injury – the applicant was referred to the Medical Assessment Tribunal – the Tribunal found that the applicant had not sustained a work related injury for the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – the applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the Tribunal’s decision – whether the Tribunal’s decision was an improper exercise of power.

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2)(e), s 23(b), s 23(g)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 92
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 179

Ergon Energy Corporation Limited v Rice-McDonald [2010] 1 Qd R 516
Thompson v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QSC 119
York v The General Medical Assessment Tribunal [2003] 2 Qd R 104

COUNSEL:

O K Perkiss with N Paschetto for the applicant

S McLeod for the first respondent

No appearance for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dwyer Law Group for the applicant

Crown Law for the first respondent

The applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the decision of the first respondents, constituting the Medical Assessment Tribunal - Orthopaedic, which rejected the applicant’s case that she has sustained a certain injury for the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”).

In 2010, the applicant injured her right knee in the course of her employment. She returned to work in January 2013. But as a result of her return to work, her existing knee injury was aggravated. On 24 January 2013, she lodged an application for compensation under the Act for injuries which she said she sustained upon her return to work. One alleged injury was the aggravation of osteoarthritis in her right knee. The Tribunal determined that this injury was suffered and that her existing lower limb permanent impairment was thereby increased from its previous seven per cent to a level of 20 per cent. The applicant makes no complaint about those findings.

A further injury which was claimed by the applicant, again relating to her right knee, was complex regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”). The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not sustained such an injury. It is that decision which the applicant challenges by the present proceeding.

It is common ground that the relevant legislation required the Tribunal, in determining whether the applicant was suffering CRPS, to apply the fourth edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the…

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 Stagg v North 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: [2014] QSC 8
Decision Date: 12 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stagg v North involved the applicant who sought a statutory order of review in relation to a decision made by the Medical Assessment Tribunal. The applicant claimed to have suffered a work-related injury and was referred to the Tribunal for an assessment under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not sustained a work-related injury, which the applicant contested by initiating judicial review proceedings. The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal’s decision constituted an improper exercise of power and, if so, whether it was unreasonable.

The court examined the statutory framework under which the Tribunal operated and assessed whether its decision was in accordance with the legislative provisions. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable and thus an improper exercise of power. The court considered the evidence presented to the Tribunal and evaluated whether the Tribunal appropriately applied the relevant legal standards in reaching its conclusion. It also scrutinised whether there were any procedural errors or evidential missteps that contributed to the Tribunal’s decision.

Ultimately, the court found that the Tribunal’s decision was not an improper exercise of power. It held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal criteria and that its decision was based on sufficient evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for a statutory order of review, affirming the Tribunal’s decision as reasonable and legally sound.

Orders

Orders of the court

The originating application is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

DR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DR J

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Stagg v North & Ors [2014] QSC 8
PARTIES:	FIONA MERYL STAGG (Applicant) v DR J NORTH, DR W SUGARS AND DR P SHARWOOD CONSTITUTING THE MEDICAL ASSESSMENT TRIBUNAL - ORTHOPAEDIC (First Respondent) and STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 9916 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	12 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 February 2014
JUDGE:	Philip McMurdo J
ORDER:	The originating application is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – UNREASONABLENESS – the applicant claimed to have suffered a work related injury – the applicant was referred to the Medical Assessment Tribunal – the Tribunal found that the applicant had not sustained a work related injury for the purpose of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – the applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the Tribunal’s decision – whether the Tribunal’s decision was an improper exercise of power. Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2)(e), s 23(b), s 23(g) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 92 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 179 Ergon Energy Corporation Limited v Rice-McDonald [2010] 1 Qd R 516 Thompson v WorkCover Queensland [2002] QSC 119 York v The General Medical Assessment Tribunal [2003] 2 Qd R 104
COUNSEL:	O K Perkiss with N Paschetto for the applicant S McLeod for the first respondent No appearance for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Dwyer Law Group for the applicant Crown Law for the first respondent