Woolfe v State of Tasmania - [2001] TASSC 66

[2001] TASSC 66

CITATION: Woolfe v State of Tasmania [2001] TASSC 66

PARTIES: WOOLFE, Robyn Jennifer

v
STATE OF TASMANIA
(DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 77/2000
DELIVERED ON:  21 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  30 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Crawford J and Blow J
CATCHWORDS:

Workers' Compensation - Causal relation between injury and incapacity or death - Incapacity or death due to two causes - Dermatitis arising out of and in the course of employment and to which the employment contributed to a substantial degree - No immediate incapacity - Subsequent incapacity due to infection entering through affected skin - Whether incapacity "by reason of" the dermatitis - Whether dermatitis had been "suffered".
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Tas), ss3(5) and 25(1)(b).

Doolan v Henry Hope & Sons, Ltd (1918) 11 BWCC 93, 87 LJKB 671; Laverick v William Gray & Co, Ltd (1919) 121 LT 289, 12 BWCC 176; Collinson v Manvers Main Collieries, Ltd (1937) 30 BWCC 280; Jones v Devonfield Enterprises (1996) 5 Tas R 345, referred to.
Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [6]

Workers' Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Appeals and stated cases - Question of law - What constitutes appeal "in point of law" - Finding that incapacity not by reason of work related disease - Whether finding open.
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s63(1).

Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14; Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1, applied.
Aust Dig Workers' Compensation [161]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  C N Dockray
             Respondent:  P Turner
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Zeeman Kable & Page
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 66
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 66/2001
File No FCA 77/2000

ROBYN JENNIFER WOOLFE v THE STATE OF TASMANIA
(DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

COX CJ
CRAWFORD J
BLOW J
21 June 2001

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.

Set aside order of primary judge dismissing the appeal to him.

Allow the appeal from the Tribunal.

Set aside the determination of the Tribunal and substitute therefor a determination that the appellant suffered the disease of dermatitis which arose out of and in the course of her employment and to which her employment contributed to a substantial degree.

Set aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appellant's application.

Remit the application to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation payable by the respondent to the appellant.

Serial No 66/2001
File No FCA 77/2000

ROBYN JENNIFER WOOLFE v THE STATE OF TASMANIA
(DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

COX CJ
21 June 2001

The appellant worker claimed payments of workers compensation pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act") in respect of a condition described in the medical certificate supporting the claim as "hands ¾ dermatitis 2^d infection". In the certificate, the doctor…

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 Woolfe v State of Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Woolfe v State of Tasmania [2001] TASSC 66
Case: [2001] TASSC 66
Decision Date: 21 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robyn Jennifer Woolfe, a nurse, sought workers' compensation from her employer, the State of Tasmania, for a condition described as "hands ¾ dermatitis 2d infection". The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal dismissed her claim, concluding that while she had suffered dermatitis arising from her employment, the infection that incapacitated her could not be linked to her employment. Woolfe appealed to the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reassessment of compensation. The Court found that the dermatitis, which did not immediately incapacitate Woolfe, was the injury that, by reason of which she became incapacitated. The subsequent infection that caused her incapacity resulted from the dermatitis, making it a compensable injury. The Court held that the Tribunal's failure to properly address causation amounted to an error in point of law. The Full Court of the Supreme Court agreed, finding that the dermatitis was the injury that led to Woolfe's incapacity and that her employer's liability arose on the day she became incapacitated by reason of it. The Court set aside the Tribunal's determination, substituting it with a finding that Woolfe had suffered the disease of dermatitis arising out of and in the course of her employment, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reassessment of compensation payable.

Orders