Woolworths Limited v Michelle Howarth [2015] NSWSC 1624

Woolworths Limited v Michelle Howarth [2015] NSWSC 1624

The approved medical specialist did not exceed his jurisdiction or deny procedural fairness by considering the worker's right shoulder restrictions, because that issue arose from the employer's own medical evidence and was considered only to decide whether the right shoulder could be used as a contralateral normal baseline, not as a separate compensable impairment. It was open to the specialist to form the medical opinion that the right shoulder was symptomatic from overuse and therefore should not be subtracted under AMA5, and his certificate gave adequate reasons for that approach. No jurisdictional error was established in the Medical Assessment Certificate, and the derivative...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Medical Assessment Certificate and a Decision Refusing a Medical Assessment Appeal in a Workers Compensation Matter / Summons Dismissed After Hearing
Outcome
The summons was dismissed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['work Related Injury' 'approved Medical Specialist Assessment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'medical Assessment Certificate' 'work Cover Guides' 'ama5 Guides' 'contralateral Normal Joint']
['workers Compensation' 'administrative Law' 'civil Law'] ['work Related Injury' 'approved Medical Specialist Assessment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'natural Justice' 'medical Assessment Certificate' 'work Cover Guides' 'ama5 Guides' 'contralateral Normal Joint']

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

Judicial Review of a Medical Assessment Certificate and a Decision Refusing a Medical Assessment Appeal in a Workers Compensation Matter / Summons Dismissed After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the approved medical specialist exceeded the terms of the referral by considering restrictions in the worker's right shoulder when assessing whole person impairment for the cervical spine and left upper extremity shoulder." 'Whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness because it was not notified that the approved medical specialist might treat the right shoulder restriction as symptomatic and not as a contralateral normal baseline.' 'Whether the approved medical specialist failed to apply the AMA5 and WorkCover Guides by not subtracting the right shoulder impairment value from the left shoulder impairment assessment.' "Whether the approved medical specialist merely accepted the worker's account and failed to give adequate reasons." "Whether the Registrar erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff's appeal under s 327 of the WIM Act to proceed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The approved medical specialist did not exceed his jurisdiction or deny procedural fairness by considering the worker's right shoulder restrictions, because that issue arose from the employer's own medical evidence and was considered only to decide whether the right shoulder could be used as a contralateral normal baseline, not as a separate compensable impairment. It was open to the specialist to form the medical opinion that the right shoulder was symptomatic from overuse and therefore should not be subtracted under AMA5, and his certificate gave adequate reasons for that approach. No jurisdictional error was established in the Medical Assessment Certificate, and the derivative...

Court Disposition

The summons was dismissed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs."]