| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| CITATION: | Tozanis v KU Children’s Services [2010] NSWWCCPD 51 | ||||
| APPELLANT: | Alice Tozanis | ||||
| RESPONDENT: | KU Children’s Services | ||||
| INSURER: | Employers Mutual NSW Limited | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-9028/09 | ||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr J McDermott | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 5 February 2010 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 13 May 2010 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; interlocutory orders of a preliminary nature | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Bill Roche | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Stacks/Goudkamp | |||
| Respondent: | Edward Michael Lawyers | ||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | Leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s Determination of 5 February 2010 is refused. Each party is to pay its or her own costs of the appeal. | ||||
BACKGROUND
The appellant worker, Ms Tozanis, injured her lower back whilst lifting a child in the course of her employment with the respondent employer, KU Children’s Services (‘the respondent’), in the course of her employment on 31 July 2000.
In an Application to Resolve a Dispute (‘the Application’) registered in the Commission on 5 November 2009, Ms Tozanis sought lump sum compensation under the Table of Disabilities in respect of a 50 per cent permanent impairment of her back and a 35 per cent permanent loss of efficient use of her left leg at or above the knee, together with compensation for pain and suffering.
The respondent’s insurer, Employers Mutual NSW Limited (‘Employers Mutual’), did not dispute that Ms Tozanis injured her back as alleged on 31 July 2000, but disputed that that injury caused a disc protrusion at the L5/S1 level of her lumbar spine.
The Commission listed the matter for conciliation and arbitration on 20 January 2010. The parties were legally represented at the arbitration. The matter proceeded with lengthy submissions, but neither side called any oral evidence.
In a reserved decision delivered on 5 February 2010, the Arbitrator found that the worker’s injury on 31 July 2000 “did not extend to” the disc pathology found to exist at the L5/S1 level of the lumbar spine. The Commission issued a Certificate of Determination on 5 February 2010 in the following terms:
“The Commission determines:
1. The matter should be remitted to the Registrar to be referred to an Approved Medical Specialist to assess, pursuant to the Table of Maims, permanent impairment to the Applicant’s lumbar spine and to her left leg at or above the knee arising from the injury which occurred on 31 July 2000.
The AMS should be supplied with all documents submitted into evidence in this arbitration, together with a copy of this Determination.
2. The Respondent to pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.”
In an appeal filed on 3 March 2010, Ms Tozanis seeks leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s Determination.
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Before proceeding to deal with an appeal the Commission must determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’).
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Tozanis v Ku Children's Services 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
- [2010] NSWWCCPD 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the Arbitrator's Determination was correct in law, whether the appeal had merit, and if there were any grounds upon which the appellant could seek leave to appeal. The court had to consider the scope of its jurisdiction in reviewing the Arbitrator's decision, the applicable legal principles, and the circumstances surrounding the initial determination. The appellant argued that the Arbitrator had erred in their interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and that this error warranted a review and potential appeal.
In assessing the appeal for leave, the court meticulously examined the arguments presented and the grounds of appeal. The court found that the Arbitrator's Determination was in line with the statutory framework and did not contain any errors of law that would justify an appeal. The court held that the appeal did not meet the threshold for leave, as the appellant had not demonstrated that the Arbitrator's decision was palpably wrong or unjust. Consequently, the court refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal and ordered that each party bear their own costs associated with the appeal proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal the Arbitrator’s Determination of 5 February 2010 is refused.
Each party is to pay its or her own costs of the appeal.
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.