Legal Research
Cases
Stojilkovic v Romas

Stojilkovic v Romas

Case [2017] VSC 49 17 February 2017

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2016 00752

SUNCICA STOJILKOVIC	Plaintiff
v
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR EVANGE ROMAS	First Defendant
DR LAURA COONEY	Second Defendant
DR MARY LEACH	Third Defendant
DR MATTHEW TAGKALIDIS	Fourth Defendant
MR JOHN BOURKE	Fifth Defendant
ALSCO PTY LTD	Sixth Defendant
QBE WORKERS COMPENSATION (VIC) LTD	Seventh Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Keogh J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 February 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stojilkovic v Romas & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 49

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review of an opinion of a medical panel – Jurisdictional error – Inadequacy of reasons – Where medical panel found that plaintiff fit for pre-injury duties working in a commercial laundry – Where the medical panel concluded that the work duties were a significant contributing factor to injury which occurred against the background of a constitutional condition – Where aggravation to which work duties materially contributed remained symptomatic – Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] VSCA 17 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms M Schilling	Zaparas Lawyers
No appearance for the First through Fifth Defendants
For the Sixth and Seventh Defendants	Mr J Gorton QC with Mr R Kumar	Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

In this proceeding the plaintiff applies for review under Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 of an opinion of a medical panel (‘the Panel’) that the plaintiff is not incapacitated for her pre-injury duties as a laundry worker by reason of suffering a work-related low back injury and a consequential psychological injury. By the amended originating motion filed at the hearing of 3 October 2016, the plaintiff applies for an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the opinion of the Panel comprised by the first to fifth defendants, together with an order in the nature of mandamus remitting the questions originally referred to the Panel by the Magistrates’ Court to a medical panel to be determined in accordance with law.

The Panel did not appear at the trial of the proceeding, and will abide by the proceeding’s outcome. The sixth defendant, Alsco Pty Ltd (‘Alsco’), is the employer of the plaintiff, and the seventh defendant, QBE Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd (‘QBE’), is the employer’s claim manager and an authorised agent of the Victorian WorkCover Authority (collectively, ‘the defendants’).

Background

The plaintiff was born on 28 May 1962. She commenced employment with Alsco as a laundry worker in September 1988.

The plaintiff attended with her GP, Dr Rozario, on 28 October 2003 complaining of a history of pain in her right buttock of two months’ duration. Dr Rozario recorded that for a time the plaintiff was unable to cope with her full duties at work but was able to perform lighter duties. According to a report from Dr Rozario dated 30 July 2004 the plaintiff had resumed her normal…

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 Stojilkovic v Romas

Details

AGLC: Stojilkovic v Romas [2017] VSC 49
Case: [2017] VSC 49
Decision Date: 17 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stojilkovic v Romas involved a judicial review of a decision by a medical panel regarding the plaintiff's fitness for his pre-injury duties in a commercial laundry. The plaintiff argued that the panel's opinion was flawed due to a lack of adequate reasons, leading to an incorrect conclusion that he was fit for his former work. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues were whether the medical panel erred in its jurisdictional capacity by failing to provide sufficient reasons for its determination, and if the panel correctly assessed the plaintiff's fitness for his pre-injury duties. The plaintiff contended that the panel did not adequately consider the contribution of his work duties to his injury, which was against the backdrop of a constitutional condition. The application hinged on whether the medical panel's decision was vitiated by a failure to provide sufficient reasons, and if the plaintiff's fitness for his former duties was appropriately assessed.

The court found that the medical panel did not commit a jurisdictional error by failing to provide detailed reasons. Instead, the court observed that the panel's opinion, while not exhaustive, was sufficient to allow for judicial scrutiny. The panel's conclusion that the plaintiff was fit for his pre-injury duties was supported by the evidence presented, including the plaintiff's ongoing symptoms and the role of his work duties in aggravating his condition. The court applied principles from Ryan v The Grange at Wodonga Pty Ltd & Ors, determining that the plaintiff's pre-existing condition did not preclude a finding that his work duties materially contributed to his injury. As a result, the court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the application for judicial review be dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

Orders