Whiteman v Australian Postal Corporation [2011] FCA 1427

Whiteman v Australian Postal Corporation [2011] FCA 1427

On the proper construction of Item 9.11 of the Comcare guide, once the claimant has undergone an arthroplasty procedure, the assessor must use the AMA guide to calculate all relevant WPI ratings, including the total WPI rating for abnormal motion and the relevant WPI rating for arthroplasty. The words obtained from...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['permanent Impairment Compensation' 'interpretation of the Comcare Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment' "use of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" 'arthroplasty and Whole Person Impairment Assessment']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation'] ['permanent Impairment Compensation' 'interpretation of the Comcare Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment' "use of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" 'arthroplasty and Whole Person Impairment Assessment']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, where an arthroplasty procedure has been undertaken, the whole person impairment rating for abnormal shoulder motion must be assessed under Tables 9.11.1a, 9.11.1b and 9.11.1c of the Comcare guide and combined with an arthroplasty rating obtained from the AMA guide.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law by undertaking the entire shoulder impairment assessment by reference to the AMA guide once arthroplasty was involved.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the proper construction of Item 9.11 of the Comcare guide, once the claimant has undergone an arthroplasty procedure, the assessor must use the AMA guide to calculate all relevant WPI ratings, including the total WPI rating for abnormal motion and the relevant WPI rating for arthroplasty. The words obtained from the American Medical Association's Guides qualify both ratings referred to in Item 9.11, and there is no warrant for combining abnormal motion ratings from the Comcare guide with an arthroplasty rating from the AMA guide. The Tribunal therefore applied the correct approach, the applicant's impairment remained below the 10% statutory threshold, and the appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal."]