吳志康 對 HONG KONG AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING CO LTD

DCEC 1672/2013 [2018] HKDC 1005 香港特別行政區 區域法院 僱員補償案件2013年第1672號 --------------------------------- 申請人 NG CHI HONG（吳志康） 及 答辯人 HONG KONG AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED ---------------------------- 主審法官：區域法院暫委法官卓元暢 審訊日期：2018年8月13-16日 判案書日期：2018年8月30日 ---------------------- 判案書 ---------------------- 引言 申請人在2013年9月12日根據《僱員補償條例》（第282章，下稱「該條例」）第18條A向答辯人申請僱員補償。另外，答辯人在2016年8月29日根據該條例第18條就僱員補償（普通評估）委員會（下稱「委員會」）在2016年6月30日發出的表格9的評估提出上訴。 申請人自2018年2月23日於他的法律援助被取消後一直親自行事，答辯人則由何大律師代表。 根據上訴庭在Ng Ming Cheong v Mass Transit Railway Corporation [1997] 3 HKC 413 (CA)（在418C-E）中所言： “ It is the clear intention of the legislation that the District Court is the forum to contest liability where this is disputed. It is also the forum to hear an appeal against the assessment of the Ordinary or Special Assessment Boards where either party is dissatisfied with it. Where liability is disputed, an employee may lodge a claim for compensation under section 18A of the Ordinance. Where the assessment is in dispute, this can be challenged by way of appeal under section 18. It can also be included in the section 18A proceedings by adding an appeal or application to appeal out of time against the assessment in the Application for compensation. If it is the employer who is not satisfied with the assessment, he can do the same in his Answer. If separate proceedings have been instituted for the determination of liability and assessment respectively, they can be consolidated. The District Judge hearing the Application for compensation can then deal with the two issues together at the trial.” 在本案中，雙方均同意本席一同審理申請人的申請及答辯人的上訴，本席因此會如是處理。 背景 申請人於1973年6月26日出生，案發時間為2012年1月19日，當時他在答辯人公司任職倉務員。 根據申請人證人陳述書說法，案發的經過如下： “15. 於2012年1月19日早上大約8時，關先生指示本人當天需要在中午12時30分前完成將前幾天送到的50箱制服搬運上架，本人再次提及本人有輕工紙及醫生建議本人避免粗重工作，但關先生表示即使本人有輕工紙本人都要搬貨，他說假如本人不能在當天中午12時30分前完成，本人需要上人事部，本人認為關先生想辭退本人，本人恐怕日後受上級歧視，唯有遵從關先生的指示搬運貨物。 16. 那批制服有50箱，每箱尺寸大約是50厘米 Ⅹ 45厘米 Ⅹ 38厘米，每箱重量大約18公斤，許漢順協助本人搬了10箱，另一名合約工人協助本人搬其餘40箱，在搬運期間，部門主管尹先生及劉經理要求接見本人，由於尹先生及劉經理的午膳時間是中午12時30分，本人需要趕快在他們午膳前見他們，本人於是趕著搬運，於大約上午11時40分，本人於完成搬運後感到左膝痛楚，本人立即告訴在場高級倉務員許先生。 17. 本人於是到寫字樓與尹先生、劉經理及關先生會面，就本人早前投訴關先生侮辱本人的事了解情況，關先生於會面時承認早前對本人不公平，但否認收到本人的輕工紙。本人於會面時向他們表示本人剛才在搬運貨物時再次弄傷左腳。 18 午飯後，由於左膝痛楚加劇，本人於大約下午1時30分到答辯人公司的醫療中心求診。” 不爭議的是根據申請人的病假紙記錄及醫院記錄，申請人在案發前左膝已有膝傷： 根據申請人的病假紙記錄，申請人早在2007年12月已有膝傷，而他在2010年5月，2011年9月，11月，12月及2012年1月都有因膝傷請假。 在2011年9月開始，申請人已多次向瑪嘉烈醫院矯形及創傷外科（骨科）的醫生提及他自一年前開始（即2010年9月）左膝已經常有痛楚，見： 2011年9月6日的會診記錄； “refer from private C/o Lt knee pain for 1 year Sprain Lt Knee 1 year ago while chasing a train Felt a “pop” sound Then developed LT knee pain Also locking of Lt knee Gradually developed swelling Seen in private with injection given Now persistent on and off Lt knee pain” 2011年12月6日的會診記錄； “Lt knee pain similar Crepitus on movement Claimed episodes of “locking” symptoms” 2012年1月10日的會診記錄； “persistent Lt knee pain Still locking episode Average around 1-2 times per week Instability feeling during downstair Private MRI done Complex medial meniscus tear with subluxation meniscus Signal changes over ACL” [emphasis added] 申請人在2011年12月17日接受磁力共振檢查，發現左膝前十字韌帶撕裂，半月皮多處撕裂，膝蓋軟骨軟化，股骨內髁及內側脛骨平台軟化等問題。龍廷鈞醫生在2011年12月28日因此建議申請人接受左膝關節內窺鏡手術。 法律責任 根據該條列第5條： “… if in any employment, personal injury by accident arising out of and on the course of the employment is caused to an employee, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance in this Ordinance.” 在本案中，主要的爭議點是有關於“personal injury by accident”（意外以致身體受傷）一詞。 根據終審法院案例Sit Wing Yi Sibly v Berton Industrial Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 104（17-21段），要符合“personal injury by accident”的意思，僱員須要證明他的工作起碼是促成身體受傷的原因（“a contributory cause of the injury”）。 從另一方面來說，如果僱員能證明工作是促成身體受傷的原因，則即使他受傷時只是做平常一般的工作，這亦已符合“personal injury by accident”的意思。見Ngai Tat Wah v Zung Fu Company Ltd (DCEC 4618/2010, 6 April 2011)，第18段、42-42段，引用英國上訴庭案Oates v Earl Fitzwilliam’s Collieries Co [1939] 2 All ER 498，其中提到： “43. The Court of Appeal (at 502) reiterated the principle that the question is not whether a specific injury arising from some specific act could be shown to have taken place. Instead: “…… a physiological injury or change occurring in the course of a man's employment by reason of the work in which he is engaged at or about that moment is an injury by accident arising out of his employment, and this is so even though the injury or change was occasioned partly, or even mainly, by the progress or development of an existing disease if the work he is doing at or about the moment of the occurrence of the physiological injury or change contributes in any material degree to its occurrence. Moreover, this is none the less true though there may be no evidence of any strain or similar cause other than that arising out of the man's ordinary work……” 因此，總括來說，在責任方面，本案的關鍵是申請人能否在相對可能性的衡量下證明他2012年1月19日的工作是促成他身體受傷的原因（“contributed materially to the present condition being complained about”）。何大律師亦同意這觀點。 分析 事實證供 申請人出庭作了供，也接受了盤問，總括來說，本席認為申請人的證供經常自相矛盾及不合常理，與很多文件中的資料不附，也經常迴避問題，是一個明顯不可信、不可靠的證人。 何大律師於他的結案陳詞中列舉了很多例子，我不需要在此全部重覆，只需列舉幾個例子如下： 在他的證人陳述書中，他說事發當天共有50箱貨物，許漢順協助他搬了10箱貨物，另一名合約工人協助他搬其餘40箱。 但在2012年3月22日的聲明書中，他卻說當天共有60箱貨物，而他和許漢順先生每人分工要搬30箱。 在2016年8月23日聯合精神科報告中則記錄了申請人另一個說法，即是他只被吩咐搬運6箱貨物。申請人在庭上卻聲稱是兩位醫生的共同錯誤。 到盤問的時候，他又說出了另一個版本，即是他一個人負責12箱大碼，外判工人一個人負責15箱中碼，許先生一個人負責8箱細碼，他和盧先生負責15箱其他碼數。 申請人在證人陳述書中提到 “於大約上午11時40分，本人於完成搬運後感到左膝痛楚”，在2016年3月10日聯合骨科報告中則記錄了申請人說他是在搬運當中感到左膝痛楚。 另外，即使是有關案發日之前的事項，申請人的說法也有很多前後不同的地方，例如他在證人陳述書提到關先生在2011年12月30日早上當申請人未有2012年1月1日的病假紙前便致電他要求他在2012年1月1日不能放病假，但他在2012年5月30日的投訴書中卻說他是在2011年12月30日下午拿了病假紙後致電關先生，而關先生才叫他於2012年1月1日須要上班。 相對之下，本席認為答辯人的證供較可靠。其中盧先生就案發當天的說法如下： 在2012年1月19日，許先生、盧先生及黎先生在上午8時上班後不久開始工作。 由上午8時多至上午10時的小休，申請人並沒有參與工作。 上午小休在10時15分結束。申請人開始加入，他和盧先生合力工作了約30分鐘，然後離開了去和公司的另一個鄭先生談話。在合作期間，盧先生沒有看到或聽到申請人的左膝有扭傷、乏力或其他異常狀況。 申請人離開工作崗位後，盧先生、許先生和黎先生繼續工作，直到12時前完成工作。 本席覺得盧先生的答案直接而肯定，是位誠實可靠的證人，而且他已退休，於本案中並沒有利益。 對於另一位黎先生，他的答案於細節中雖然不大肯定，但證供基本上和盧先生吻合，本席也接受他的證供。 至於關先生，本席留意到他的供詞中對於發生於2012年1月16日關於申請人對他歧視的言行的投訴與他在2012年7月4日所簽的致歉信有差異，但總括來說，對於在案發當天的事情，本席認為關先生的證供較申請人合理和可靠，本席也接納關先生關於案發當天情況的證供。 答辯人本來還準備了另一位許先生的證人供詞，但在庭上答辯人解釋說許先生已離開答辯人公司，而他的證供基本上和答辯人的其他證人供詞相近，因此並不再需要他出庭，也選擇不傳召他。然而，基於這情況本席也要考慮不利推論（“adverse inference”）這方面的問題。 根據Ip Ma Shan Henry v Chung Hing Industrial Company Ltd [2003] 1 HKC 256, 307，有關原則如下： “155. On the other hand, Mr Yu relied on Cross & Tapper on Evidence, 9th Edn, p. 36-38 and invited this court to draw adverse inference against Arnold. In my judgment, the relevant principles applicable to civil proceedings can be summarized as follows, if a prima facie case is made out, and if there are evidence available to the party against whom the case is established which could displace the prima facie case, and he omits to call such evidence, an inference could be drawn; however, the inference could be rebutted by a plausible explanation by the party who elected not to call the evidence; if an inference is to be drawn, it would be an inference that such available evidence, even if adduced, would not displace the prima facie case; it is also open to a tribunal of fact, upon the drawing of such an inference, to take it into account in respect of a matter with respect to which the person not called as a witness could have spoken, in deciding whether to accept any particular evidence, which has in fact been given, either for or against that party; in deciding whether to draw inferences of fact, which are open to them upon evidence which has been given.” 如以上所述，本席認為申請人的證供完全不可靠，因此對於案發當天的情況，本席認為申請人並沒有一個表面證明的案件（“prima facie case”）。而且答辯人也解釋了為何許先生未有出庭。無論如何，即使本席將以上的不利推論考慮在內，本席認為綜合來說，答辯人的證供仍然較可信。 專家證供 申請人委任了林醫生作為骨科專家，答辯人則委任了高醫生，他們亦作了聯合專家報告，根據法庭之前的命令，他們不須要出庭。 根據林醫生的意見： “83. Dr. Lam’s opinion: The diagnosis of the alleged accident on 19 January 2012 is sprain injury to left knee exacerbating his pre-existing knee condition. According to the medical reports, when Mr. Ng was examined by Raffle Medical Clinic (19 January 2012), A&E Department of PMH (19 January 2012) and A&E Department of TMH (26 January 2012), there was no swelling or effusion over left knee, the left knee joint range was full. MRI of left knee taken on 5 February 2012 in TWAH showed bone contusion (with irregular wavy shape TIW hypointense line suggestive of fracture) around insertion of ACI, and similar degenerative changes as previous MRI. Under such circumstance, the severity of sprain should be mild to moderate degree but the paint symptom can be severe and partly due to exacerbation of his pre-existing problem by the heavy manual work he had done.” 根據高醫生的意見： “84. Dr. Ko: Mr. Ng gives information at this joint assessment that he had an injury on duty on 19 Jan.2012. According to the mechanism he describes, the energy of injury to his left would be of minimal, if not trivial injury. In fact, long before 19 Jan 2012, he had already been documented from O&T report that he had pre-existing left knee pain which was first attended to at O&T PMH in Sept 2011 and had already lasted for one year which means that he had left knee pain for at least more than one year before the occurrence of the alleged injury. MRI done in Dec 2011 (16 Dec 2011 i.e. one month before the alleged injury) already showed significant internal knee derangement with partial tear of ACL, complex tear of the medial meniscus, tear in the lateral meniscus and chondromalacia patellae as well as chondromalacia in the tibial femoral joint. All these are manifestations of a 'failing' knee which essentially were features of degenerative knee disease with failure of the cartilage, failure of the ligaments and failure of the menisci. Whether it was his 'failing' knee that caused the symptoms during his moving of heavy objects on 19 Jan 2012 or there was a minor sprain to the left knee that caused exacerbation of his pre-existing left knee pain could not be ascertained or differentiated. It is natural and understandable that the perception of increase in his left knee pain during his working time on 19 Jan 2012 makes him think that there was injury to the left knee that caused increase of his symptoms or onset of his problems. 85. Dr. Ko: After his alleged accident, the second MRI was done of 5 Feb 2012 which showed only bone contusion. This was very clear evidence that the alleged accident, if it had really occurred 19 Jan 2012, did not have any significant damage or injury to the left knee but only showed features of marrow edema which could have been caused by the failing knee (progression of DJD) or simple contusion. The arthroscopic surgery performed at PMH on 11 Sept 2012 confirmed the degenerative changes in the meniscii and the articular cartilage in all the compartments. This confirmed the generalized diffuse degeneration knee diseases in the left knee. 86. Dr. Ko: One more important point that speaks against any significant injury to the left knee on 19 Jan 2012 was the information from AED. Mr. Ng went to attend AED on the same day of the injury on 19 Jan 2012. Examination showed minimal effusion over left knee with normal range of motion. The stress tests were negative. This essentially means that if there had been significant injury to the left knee or any fresh injury, it would be almost impossible to have no significant positive signs or acute injury like swelling, effusion, etc, on top of those structural derangement that had already been previously discovered in the previous MRI before the alleged accident (17 Oct 2011). This essentially means that even if the alleged accident had not had occurred on 19 Jan 2012, Mr. Ng would still inevitably need to undergo the two operation treatment and rehabilitation of his left knee pre-existing condition before the alleged injury on 19 Jan 2012.” [emphasis added] 另外雙方同意： “87. Mr. Ng received 2 operations and rehabilitation for his left knee. We agree that the operations are appropriate for his pre-existing condition and are required irrespective of whether the subject left knee injury had occurred or not.” 值得留意的是，聯合報告是建基於申請人聲稱意外發生的過程上。 聯合骨科報告第1及81段有提及該聲稱意外： “1. Mr. Ng gave a history of left knee injury during work on 19 January 2012. While he was moving an object (clothes in a box) with a co-worker, he noticed sudden onset of pain and weakness over left knee, and then the left knee was sprained and gave way (he moved around 60 boxes before the injury), he did not fall onto the ground. There was severe pain and he was unable to continue to work. 81. Mr. Ng gave a history of left knee injury during work on 19 January 2012. He said after moving around 60 boxes of goods, he noticed sudden onset of pain and weakness over left knee when he was moving one of the boxes, his knee was sprained and gave way.” 換而言之，林醫生是主要根據申請人聲稱在搬運時左膝扭傷，而判斷申請人的傷患是 “sprain injury to left knee exacerbating his pre-existing knee condition”。但正如本席在上文所述，本席不能依賴申請人的證供，而且事實上，在申請人本人的證人供詞中亦沒有提及他在案發當天有扭傷，只說完成搬運後感到左膝痛楚，兩位專家亦同意申請人在案發當天及在2012年1月26日的醫療報告中左膝沒有明顯 “swelling or effusion”及 “the left knee part range was full”。在這情況下，本席不能接受林醫生的意見。 雖然如此，本席仍然需要根據常理考慮到申請人的工作有否促成他的身體受傷。在這方面，如果申請人的搬運工作真的有造成右膝受傷，例如撞到或扭傷，按常理說，應該當天或稍後在左膝上有見到瘀傷或者左膝的活動範圍會受影響，但2012年1月12日及2012年1月26日的醫療報告卻見不到這種情況。 再者，林醫生和高醫生比較申請人在2011年12月17日及2012年2月5日的磁力共振報告後，同意申請人的左膝骨在該聲稱意外後基本上只出現了骨挫傷(bone contusion)，高醫生則指出申請人的左膝骨髓有水腫的特徵(features of marrow ederna)。高醫生的意見是，左膝骨挫傷可能由申請人左膝的持續退化問題(progression of degenerative joint disease)引致，亦可能縁於簡單的挫傷(simple contusion)。然而，正如本席以上所述，申請人只短暫工作了30分鐘，他也從來沒有說過他因左膝碰撞硬物而受傷。所以，本席認為該聲稱意外不應該引致或促成申請人左膝骨挫傷，該挫傷只是申請人左膝持續退化的問題。 基於以上所述，申請人未能在相對可能性下證明他在2012年1月19日的工作有促成他的身體受傷。 補償金額 假如本席在法律責任的判決有誤，對於補償金額方面，本席有以下裁決。 在這方面，申請人和答辯人唯一的爭議是在該條例第10條下的補償時期為多少。根據表格9的評估，申請人應該有360日的病假。根據第10(2)條及上訴庭Tse Tse Choy v Law Sze Man [2015] 1 HKLRD 1120的裁決： “In a nutshell, the correct legal position is this: s 10(2) set out a rebuttable statutory presumption of temporary incapacity during the certified period in the context of an employee compensation claim. The burden is on an employer to rebut that presumption.” 從高醫生的意見及比較申請人在2011年12月17日及2012年2月5日的磁力共振報告中可見，若果申請人的工作有促成他的身體受傷，這也只於造成左膝骨挫傷 (bone contusion)。而且根據高醫生的意見，這種骨挫傷的影響只是短暫的： “… Dr. Ko would further elaborate that even if the injury had not had occurred on 19 Jan 2012, he would certainly end up in end stage degenerative knee disease resulting in his operative treatment and also functional incapability and incapacity. On the other hand, the occurrence of the alleged accident on 19 Jan 2012 would have contributed minimal, if at all to the present functional and physical disability and incapacity of his left knee condition. Dr. Ko: The adverse effect of bone contusion would be mild, transient and should not be long lasting and permanent. In the usual clinical situation after this kind of bone contusion injury, a short period of conservative treatment and rest up to about maximal 5-6 months should be adequate and reasonable. Dr. Ko also would like to point out that the work that he performed would not have caused any significant progression of his DJD even if it did not have any work, this progression of DJD of the pre-existing pathology would not stop or slow down. … 92. Dr. Ko: For the possible minor bone contusion injury after the probable injury that occurred on 19 Jan 2012, as already discussed above, simple conservative measures up to 5-6 months should be adequate and reasonable. The rest of the treatment including operation and rehabilitation that Mr. Ng underwent after the alleged accident had already been scheduled before the alleged accident because of the pre-existing left knee pathology. Those were in no way related to the alleged accident that occurred on 19 Jan 2012 and should have been caused by the pre-existing left knee pathology.” [emphasis added] 本席接納這意見。因此，在生理方面來說，正如高醫生所說，在意外起6個月的病假已經足夠。 從心理方面來說，對申請人最有利的是黎醫生的意見，他建議在申請人心理情況較壞時給予6-9個月病假。而申請人心理情況較壞時是在2012年3-4月期間，因此給予申請人病假直至2013年1月應該已經足夠。 在2013年1月後，不論在生理或在心理方面來說，這已和2012年1月19日的意外沒有關係，而只是申請人本身原來的病患所引致的喪失工作能力。另外，本席亦就終審法院在 LKK Tras Ltd v Wong Hoi Choy (2006) 9 HKCFAR 103中向何大律師提到如果申請人的工作和申請人本身的疾病是他永久部分喪失工作能力的共同原因（“concurrent contributing causes to the respondent’s permanent partial incapacity”），則法庭不應做攤分，而顧主應承擔所有責任。 何大律師指出本案不同該案，本案牽涉的不是該條例第9條中（部份或全部）永久喪失工作能力（例如在LKK中顧員需改短腳部的情況），而是第10條中暫時性的喪失工作能力時期，在這時期中，特別是在案發後期，若果申請人的暫時性的喪失工作能力已經和工傷意外完全沒有關係，則不應該要求顧主再繼續這方面的補償。 本席傾向於接納何大律師的說法，因此裁定即使答辯人在本案中有責任，在第10條下合適的補償時期為12個月。 總括來說，若果申請人能證明答辯人的法律責任，補償金額應該為如下： 項目 計算方法 補償金額（港幣） 該條例第9條的補償 17,439.02 x 96 x 4% 66,965.84 該條例第10條的補償 17,439.02 x 4/5 x 12 167,414.59 該條例第10A條的補償 7,000 減：已收取的賠償 (154,722.10) 總數（未計利息） 86,658.33 結論 綜合以上各點，本席作出以下命令： (1) 本申請被撤銷； (2) 表格9中「由於受傷而須缺勤的期間」更改為12個月，由2012年1月19日至2013年1月18日；及 (3) 臨時訟費的命令(costs order nisi)為申請人須付答辯人訟費（連同大律師證書），若雙方不申請更改此臨時訟費命令將變成絕對(costs order absolute)。 本席感謝大律師的協助。 （ 卓元暢 ） 區域法院暫委法官 申請人：沒有律師代表，並親自應訊 答辯人：由麥陳楊律師事務所延聘的何禮安大律師代表