Legal Research
Cases
Tralongo v Malios

Tralongo v Malios

Case [2007] VSC 239 6 July 2007

Judicial Review

Administrative Decision-Making

Reasons for Decision

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

No. 9445 of 2006

PETER TRALONGO	Plaintiff
v
DR JOHN MALIOS & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS, J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 March 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 July 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Tralongo v Malios & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 239

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Questions referred to Medical Panel under s 45 Accident Compensation Act 1985 – Judicial review – Application for relief in nature of certiorari – Misstatement by Medical Panel of history provided by worker - Whether irrelevant considerations taken into account – Whether failure to take relevant considerations into account – Adequacy of reasons

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Mr Tralongo	Mr J Richards, SC and Mr M Walsh	Nowicki Carbone & Co
For the Defendants	Mr M Fleming	Herbert Geer and Rundle

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The issues............................................................................................................................................ 2

Background......................................................................................................................................... 3

The medical panel’s reasons............................................................................................................ 7

Submissions...................................................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 16

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 19

HER HONOUR:

The claim

The plaintiff (“Mr Tralongo”) claims relief in the nature of certiorari quashing a decision of the first, second, third and fourth defendants (“the medical panel”). The decision was the statement of the medical panel’s opinion as to the answers to three medical questions referred to it by a judge of the County Court under s 45(1)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the medical questions”).[1] The answers were given in the medical panel’s “Certificate of Opinion” dated 7 October 2005. The medical panel also gave “Reasons for Opinion” dated 7 October 2005 (“the medical panel’s reasons”).
[1]See: Master v McCubbery (1996] 1 VR 635 at 659 per Callaway JA. Callaway JA held that it does not strain ordinary language to say that, in giving such an opinion, a medical panel decides a medical question.

Mr Tralongo also seeks orders for a determination of the medical questions by a differently constituted panel.

The medical questions relate to injury to Mr Tralongo’s back, left lower extremity and left hip, stress, anxiety and depression and pain and suffering (“the injury”) which he alleges he suffered in February 1996 whilst he was employed by the fifth defendant (“Schiavello”).

Notwithstanding the statement of grounds in the amended originating motion by which the application is brought, counsel for Mr Tralongo now presses challenges to the medical panel’s decision only on the grounds that it:

(a)       failed to take into account relevant considerations;
(b)      took into account irrelevant considerations; and
(c)       failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.

The material before the Court

Mr Tralongo relies in support of his application upon his own affidavit sworn on 1 December 2005, and those of his solicitor, Mr Sammy Bektas, sworn, respectively, on 30 November 2005 and 1 December 2005.

There is no material filed by or on behalf of the medical panel. Its solicitor informed the Court that it would not appear at the hearing of the application and would submit…

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 Tralongo v Malios

Details

AGLC: Tralongo v Malios [2007] VSC 239
Case: [2007] VSC 239
Decision Date: 6 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tralongo v Malios involved a claim for workers' compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The dispute arose when the Medical Panel, which was tasked with providing a medical opinion on the worker's claim, made a misstatement regarding the history provided by the worker. The worker sought judicial review, specifically an order of certiorari, to quash the Medical Panel's decision on the grounds that it was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations. The court was required to determine whether the Medical Panel's decision was flawed due to the misstatement and whether the reasons provided for the decision were adequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the misstatement by the Medical Panel constituted an error in taking irrelevant considerations into account or a failure to take relevant considerations into account. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the reasons provided for the decision were adequate and whether the decision was therefore lawful. The court had to balance the principle that the reasons for administrative decisions should be clear and intelligible against the need to ensure that administrative bodies do not act beyond their powers or in a manner that is unfair.

In its decision, the court found that the misstatement by the Medical Panel did indeed constitute a failure to take relevant considerations into account, as it was a material factor in the worker's history. The court held that the reasons provided for the decision were inadequate because they did not address the misstatement and its impact on the decision-making process. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision was flawed and granted the application for relief in the form of certiorari, quashing the decision of the Medical Panel. The case underscores the importance of accurate record-keeping and the provision of adequate reasons in administrative decision-making, particularly in the context of workers' compensation claims.

The final orders of the court included quashing the decision of the Medical Panel and remitting the matter back to the panel for reconsideration. The court emphasised that the panel must properly consider the worker's history and provide clear and adequate reasons for any future decision. This decision serves as a reminder to administrative bodies of the need to adhere to the principles of natural justice and the requirement to provide adequate reasons for their decisions.

Orders