| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | ||||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||||||
| CITATION: | Superior Formwork Pty Ltd v Livaja [2009] NSWWCCPD 158 | |||||
| APPELLANT: | Superior Formwork Pty Ltd | |||||
| RESPONDENT: | Marko Livaja | |||||
| INSURER: | Employers Mutual NSW Limited | |||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-2958/09 | |||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms A Nicholl | |||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 20 August 2009 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: | 10 December 2009 | |||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 17 December 2009 | |||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Status of a Medical Assessment Certificate in subsequent proceedings; section 326 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; failure to give reasons; failure to consider the employer’s expert evidence; failure to determine worker’s ability to earn; section 40(2)(b) Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether the effect of the work injury had ceased | |||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Bill Roche | |||||
| HEARING: | Oral | |||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Mr Wardell, solicitor, Edwards Michael Lawyers | ||||
| Respondent: | Mr Stockley, instructed by NSW Compensation Lawyers | |||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination of 20 August 2009 is confirmed. The matter is remitted to the Registrar for determination of any outstanding issues. | |||||
| The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal. Those costs are assessed at $2,200.00 plus GST. | ||||||
INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns three main issues:
(a)the status in the current proceedings of a Medical Assessment Certificate (‘MAC’) obtained in previous proceedings between the same parties when those proceedings were discontinued without any determination by the Commission;
(b)whether, by failing to refer to any of the employer’s medical or other expert evidence, the Arbitrator failed to give reasons, and
(c)whether an Arbitrator is entitled to find that the effect of an injury has ceased.
BACKGROUND
The worker, Mr Livaja, injured his neck, back, right shoulder and right elbow in the course of his employment as a formwork carpenter with Superior Formwork Pty Ltd (‘Superior Formwork’) when he fell whilst carrying a five metre long ‘bearer’ or ‘header’ on 7 March 2005. His claim was initially accepted and voluntary compensation paid until 14 November 2005.
In proceedings registered in the Commission on 26 October 2006 in matter number 16951-06 (‘the first proceedings’), Mr Livaja claimed weekly compensation from November 2005 to date and continuing, and lump sum compensation in respect of an alleged whole person impairment in respect of his cervical spine and lumbar spine as a result of injury to his neck and low back on 7 March 2005.
The Commission referred that claim for assessment by an Approved Medical Specialist (‘AMS’). The AMS, Dr Harrison, issued a MAC on 11 April 2007 in which he assessed Mr Livaja to have nil whole person impairment in respect of both his cervical spine and his lumbar spine. He made no assessment of the impairment resulting from Mr Livaja’s right shoulder injury, as the referral had not asked him to do so.
On 8 May 2007, Mr Livaja appealed Dr Harrison’s assessments to a Medical Appeal Panel (‘the Appeal Panel’) on the grounds that they had been made…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Superior Formwork Pty Ltd v Livaja 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
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 158
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the Arbitrator had erred by not giving adequate reasons for the determination and by failing to consider the employer's expert evidence. The Medical Assessment Certificate was pivotal in assessing the worker's ability to return to work and whether the effects of the work injury had ceased. The court found that the Arbitrator's omission to determine the worker's ability to earn constituted a significant procedural flaw, as it was necessary to assess whether the worker was capable of earning wages equivalent to those earned prior to the injury. Furthermore, the failure to address the statutory requirements under section 40(2)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 was deemed critical. The court concluded that the Arbitrator's decision did not comply with the statutory framework, necessitating a re-examination of the matter.
Ultimately, the Industrial Relations Commission confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination of 20 August 2009 but remitted the matter to the Registrar for resolution of any remaining issues. The court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory directives and ensuring comprehensive reasoning in such determinations, particularly concerning the cessation of compensation entitlements.
Orders
Orders of the court
For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination of 20 August 2009 is confirmed. The matter is remitted to the Registrar for determination of any outstanding issues.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.