Terence Cameron v the WorkCover Corporation No. SCGRG 92/1894 Judgment No. 4139 Number of Pages 6 Workers' Compensation

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Terence Cameron appealed against the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal's decision regarding the assessment of a lump sum disability payment. The tribunal had determined that the appellant, who had sustained a chronic right lateral epicondylitis, was entitled to a lump sum of $12,618. The appellant argued that the tribunal had failed to consider the subjective effects of his disability, such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and other non-economic losses. The primary issue for the court was whether the subjective factors should be considered when assessing non-economic loss for a lump sum disability payment under section 43 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

The court examined the statutory provisions and found that section 43(4) required the compensation to be determined by reference to the Third Schedule, which lists specific disabilities and the corresponding compensation percentages. The court held that the Third Schedule provided a common level of awards for non-economic loss for a particular disability without regard to the particular impact of the disability on the individual worker. The court rejected the appellant's argument, stating that the legislation's scheme ignored consideration of the subjective effect of a particular loss on a worker. The court concluded that the tribunal's decision was correct and that the appellant was not entitled to a higher compensation amount based on subjective factors.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal's decision. The court found that the reasoning and decision of the tribunal were correct and that the appellant was not entitled to a higher compensation amount based on subjective factors. The court held that the Third Schedule provided a common level of awards for non-economic loss for a particular disability without regard to the particular impact of the disability on the individual worker. The court found that the appellant was entitled to a lump sum of $12,618 as determined by the tribunal.