Craig Bell and Stephanie Wigan | October 2013 | Employers Liability
In the matter of Adam Hamdon and Aska Aluminium Pty Ltd (liquidator appointed) [WCC: 5569/12] the Workers Compensation Commission refused an application for reconsideration of a medical assessment certificate (MAC), despite acknowledging there may have been plausible grounds for an Appeal.
Who does this impact? Insurers and employers seeking to dispute the findings of a MAC.
The Facts: • A MAC was issued on 31 January 2013 which assessed the applicant as having a combined total of 10% WPI of the lumbar spine (7% WPI) and right shoulder (3% WPI) as a result of the work injury on 25 August 2006.
TurkAlert
Appeal of a MAC is preferable to a Reconsideration
• The AMS had made a 4/7th deduction pursuant to Section 323 in respect of the right shoulder. However no deduction was made for the lumbar spine. • Ultimately the Commission refused the respondent’s application for reconsideration, despite acknowledging there may be plausible grounds. In the statement of reasons for the decision, it was highlighted there is a public interest objective in the finality of a matter. Consideration must be had as to whether the application is frivolous or brought without proper justification. The Arbitrator also acknowledged that the objectives of the Commission was to ‘provide a fair and cost effective system for the resolution of disputes … and that the Commission has a duty to do justice between the parties according to the substantial merits of the case’ : Deputy President Roche in Samuel v Sebel Furniture [2006] NSWWCCPD141 (Samuel). The Arbitrator reported that the AMS took a ‘detailed and correct history of the injury, its effects on the applicant and his pre-existing conditions’ (at 16 of COD). However, the Arbitrator did not accept the respondent’s submissions that the AMS had failed to make a Section 323 deduction for the lumbar spine. The Arbitrator refused to allow the MAC to proceed back to the AMS for reconsideration.
1