Superior Formwork Pty Ltd v Livaja

Link copied
Case Copied 55 min read
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

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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. 

  1. 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.

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2009] NSWWCCPD 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Superior Formwork Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Livaja regarding an injury sustained at work and the ongoing entitlements to compensation. The dispute was heard and determined by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the Arbitrator's decision correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the cessation of the worker's entitlement to compensation. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the Arbitrator had appropriately considered the Medical Assessment Certificate and whether the failure to provide reasons and to assess the worker's ability to earn was in breach of statutory requirements.

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.