| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| CITATION: | Wynyard Properties Pty Limited v Reyes [2013] NSWWCCPD 23 | ||||
| APPELLANT: | Wynyard Properties Pty Limited | ||||
| RESPONDENT: | Evelyn Reyes | ||||
| INSURER: | Allianz Australia Workers’ Compensation (NSW) Limited | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-6897/12 | ||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr P Sweeney | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 10 January 2013 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 24 April 2013 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Application to extend time to appeal; Pt 16 r 16.2 of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2011; sufficient compliance with s 282 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Keating | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Hicksons | |||
| Respondent: | Turner Freeman Lawyers | ||||
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The application to extend time to appeal is refused. 2. The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed. | ||||
INTRODUCTION
The amendments introduced by the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012 (the 2012 amending Act) restrict entitlements to permanent impairment compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of claims made after 19 June 2012.This appeal concerns whether valid particulars of a claim for lump sum compensation were provided to the appellant prior to 19 June 2012, and therefore whether a valid claim for lump sum compensation was made before 19 June 2012.
BACKGROUND
The respondent worker, Ms Reyes, was employed by the appellant as a room attendant from 2001 through to 2008.
On 3 January 2006, Ms Reyes suffered injuries to her back, neck and right shoulder while pushing and pulling a bed during the course of her employment. She made a claim for permanent impairment compensation. That claim was resolved and on 7 February 2008, the Commission entered a Certificate of Determination Consent Orders. The consent orders noted, among other things, an award in favour of Ms Reyes in respect of an 18 per cent whole person impairment as a result of injuries to the right shoulder and neck and seven per cent whole person impairment as a result of injuries to the lumbar spine pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act, plus an amount of $20,000 pursuant to s 67 of the 1987 Act.
On 16 November 2008, Ms Reyes underwent an ulnar nerve decompression at the right elbow and excision of a ganglion performed by Dr Dexter.
It is evident that prior to December 2009, Ms Reyes made a claim for compensation in respect of her right elbow, and left shoulder, although the precise details of this claim are not in evidence. It is evident because on 14 December 2009, Allianz issued a notice under s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), declining liability for “your claim for compensation for your right elbow and left shoulder”. The “claim” was rejected on the basis that the injuries to the right elbow and left shoulder were not workplace injuries within the meaning s 4 of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wynyard Properties Pty Limited v Reyes 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
- [2013] NSWWCCPD 23
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and the procedural history of the case. It was established that the employer had not strictly adhered to the procedural requirements set forth in the relevant statutes. The court held that the employer's application for an extension of time was not supported by the necessary compliance with the statutory provisions, which is a prerequisite for such an extension. As such, the employer's application was dismissed.
Consequently, the court refused the application to extend the time to appeal. Additionally, it ordered the appellant employer to cover the respondent worker's costs associated with the appeal, either as per the agreed amount or as assessed by the court. The decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory and procedural mandates in applications for extensions of time in workers' compensation appeals.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application to extend time to appeal is refused.
2. The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker's costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.
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.