CORCORAN v TYRE MARKETERS AUSTRALIA [2001] NSWCA 300

CORCORAN v TYRE MARKETERS AUSTRALIA [2001] NSWCA 300

The appellant sustained the burden that at the time of the election, there was no reasonable cause to believe that the further deterioration that later occurred would occur. The medical evidence and contemporaneous expert opinions did not suggest probable deterioration, and the expectations for improvement were falsified by later events, justifying revocation of the election under s151A(5)(c). The election was intended to encompass all disability arising from the workplace injury, including neck injury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld (majority); dissenting opinion would have dismissed appeal
Legal Topics
['compensation Revocation' 'back Injury' 'degenerative Spinal Condition' 'permanent Loss Compensation' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S151 A(5)(c)']
['workers Compensation' 'personal Injury'] ['compensation Revocation' 'back Injury' 'degenerative Spinal Condition' 'permanent Loss Compensation' 'workers Compensation Act 1987 S151 A(5)(c)']

Case Brief

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant could revoke election to claim permanent loss compensation under s151A(5)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'Whether, at the time of the election, there was reasonable cause to believe that further deterioration would occur' "Whether the appellant's election extended to a neck injury"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant sustained the burden that at the time of the election, there was no reasonable cause to believe that the further deterioration that later occurred would occur. The medical evidence and contemporaneous expert opinions did not suggest probable deterioration, and the expectations for improvement were falsified by later events, justifying revocation of the election under s151A(5)(c). The election was intended to encompass all disability arising from the workplace injury, including neck injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld (majority); dissenting opinion would have dismissed appeal

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the appellant to proceed on the amended notice of appeal filed on 11 May 2001.' 'Appeal upheld.' "Set aside orders of Judge Naughton on 3 November 1999, with the exception of the order relating to the respondent's notice of motion." 'Grant leave to the appellant to revoke his election to claim...