Western Health v Gallichio - [2009] VSC 134

fsyn

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8131 of 2008

WESTERN HEALTH	Plaintiff
and
DR FRANCIS GALLICHIO, DR ALAN GOBLE, DR MARK FARACHER and MARY SALIBA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	PAGONE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 April 2009
DATE OF RULING:	8 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Western Health v Dr Gallichio & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 134

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Medical panel – Adequacy of reasons – Remedies available where reasons inadequate – Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic), s. 8.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Dr K P Hanscombe SC and Mr M Fleming	Lander & Rogers
For the First, Second and Thirdnamed Defendants	No appearance
For the Fourthnamed Defendant	Mr M O’Loghlen QC and Mr N B Chamings	Arnold Thomas Becker Pty Ltd

---

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Western Health, challenges a determination of the first to third defendants, the medical panel, dated 3 July 2008 pursuant to the Wrongs Act 1958 that the whole of person impairment of the fourth defendant, Mrs Saliba, satisfied the threshold level under that Act. The dispute between Western Health and Mrs Saliba commenced with a claim made by letter from her solicitors dated 19 February 2008 to the legal officer of Western Health. Mrs Saliba’s claim was that she suffers from neurogenic syncope and other consequences of surgery at the Western General Hospital on 23 May 2006 to insert a permanent pacemaker. Mrs Saliba wishes to initiate a claim for damages against the hospital and the doctor who performed the surgical procedure. In order for her to do so, however, she must satisfy the threshold requirements in the Wrongs Act which restricts recovery of common law damages for non‑economic loss in respect of personal injuries. Recovery is only available where the claimant has suffered “significant injury”, which in this case means a greater than 5% whole person impairment.

The claim letter enclosed a certificate of assessment pursuant to s 28LN of the Wrongs Act dated 17 November 2007 signed by Dr Michael Jelinek certifying that the claimant had a greater than 5% whole person impairment. On 18 April 2008 the solicitors for Western Health referred a medical question to a medical panel. The question referred was:

Does the degree of impairment resulting from the injury to the claimant alleged in the claim satisfy the threshold level?

The medical panel’s answer to that question was:
The panel determined that the degree of whole person impairment resulting from the physical injury to the claimant alleged in the claim does satisfy the threshold level.

On 3 July 2008 the medical panel gave a certificate of determination pursuant to s 28LZG(2)(a) of the Wrongs Act with its answer to the medical question asked. On the same day it gave its reasons (“the reasons”).

Western Health contends that the certificate of determination ought to be quashed and the medical question remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for determination.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Western Health v Gallichio 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] VSC 134
Decision Date: 8 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Western Health v Gallichio involved a medical practitioner, Dr Gallichio, challenging the decision of a medical panel of Western Health, an entity responsible for public health services. Dr Gallichio contested the panel's decision to terminate his employment, alleging procedural unfairness and inadequate reasons. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria for judicial review under the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). The primary legal issues before the court were whether the panel's decision was vitiated by procedural errors and whether the reasons provided were adequate.

The court was required to examine the procedural fairness of the panel's decision-making process and determine if the reasons given for Dr Gallichio's dismissal were sufficient. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the panel provided reasons that adequately addressed the grounds for dismissal, as required by the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the panel's failure to provide adequate reasons necessitated a remittal of the case for reconsideration.

In its decision, the court held that the panel's decision-making process was procedurally fair, and there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. However, the court found that the reasons provided by the panel were inadequate as they did not sufficiently address the grounds for dismissal. The court concluded that while the panel's decision-making process was fair, the lack of adequate reasons rendered the decision flawed. Consequently, the court ordered that the case be remitted back to the panel for reconsideration and the provision of adequate reasons. This decision underscores the importance of providing clear and sufficient reasons in administrative decisions to ensure transparency and fairness.

Orders