| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| STATUS: Reported Decision: WorkCover New South Wales v Evans (2009) 7 DDCR 231 | |||||
| CITATION: | WorkCover New South Wales v Evans [2009] NSWWCCPD 95 | ||||
| APPELLANT: | WorkCover New South Wales | ||||
| RESPONDENT: | Craig Anthony Evans | ||||
| INSURER: | WorkCover New South Wales | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-9527/08 | ||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms E Grotte | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 9 March 2009 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 11 August 2009 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Review of weekly payment pursuant to section 55 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – change in financial circumstances; issue estoppel and referral of lump sum claims to Approved Medical Specialist – application of Haroun v Rail Corporation of NSW & Ors [2008] NSWCA 192 where causation decided by Arbitrator in determining claims other than lump sum claims. | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting Deputy President Michael Snell | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Sparke Helmore | |||
| Respondent: | Taylor & Scott | ||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | The decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 March 2009 is varied, by revoking paragraph two, and substituting in its place: “2. The following is remitted to the Registrar for referral to an AMS for assessment of the degree of permanent loss: - permanent loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee resulting from the date of injury of 5 October 2001.” | ||||
| The balance of the decision dated 9 March 2009 is confirmed. | |||||
| The Appellant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of this appeal. | |||||
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
On 8 April 2009 WorkCover New South Wales (‘the Appellant’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 9 March 2009.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Craig Anthony Evans (‘the Respondent’).
The Respondent, who is now 34 years of age, commenced working with Jeremy Adams trading as JWA Furniture Restorations on about 1 January 2000, as an apprentice cabinet maker. He suffered injuries in the course of such employment on 26 September 2001 and 5 October 2001.
His statement dated 22 May 2008 indicates that in the first of these incidents a gust of wind caught a sheet of material he was carrying, forcing him against a wall. He said he felt pain in his lower and mid back, right shoulder and neck. He did not actually take time off after this incident, although said he carried out lighter work and reported the injury. On 5 October 2001 he was assisting in carrying a large television cabinet into a residence, when he tripped and fell. He said he felt pain in the whole of his spine from the lower back to the neck, together with the right leg and right shoulder. He ceased working from 12 October 2001.
His employer was uninsured, and his claim for compensation was met by the Appellant. The Appellant declined liability for weekly compensation from 6 August 2002. The Respondent instituted proceedings (matter number 4626-02), which were determined by an…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read WorkCover New South Wales v Evans 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
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles of issue estoppel and determined that, according to the precedent set in Haroun, the Arbitrator’s findings on causation could not be re-litigated in the context of the lump sum claim. However, the court found that the principle of issue estoppel did not extend to the assessment of permanent impairment for the purpose of determining weekly payments. The court also ruled that the referral of the lump sum claim to an AMS for assessment was necessary to ensure an accurate evaluation of the degree of permanent loss, even though the causation had already been determined. The court held that the determination of permanent impairment is distinct from the assessment of causation, and thus, required a separate assessment by an AMS.
Consequently, the decision of the Arbitrator was varied to reflect these findings. Specifically, the Tribunal revoked the second paragraph of the Arbitrator’s decision and substituted it with a new paragraph that directed the Registrar to refer the assessment of the degree of permanent loss to an AMS. The final orders of the Tribunal were that the decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 March 2009 be varied by revoking paragraph two and substituting in its place the specified new paragraph concerning the referral to an AMS.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 March 2009 is varied, by revoking paragraph two, and substituting in its place:
“2. The following is remitted to the Registrar for referral to an AMS for assessment of the degree of permanent loss:
- permanent loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee resulting from the date of injury of 5 October 2001.”
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.