Casserly v Alcoa of Australia Ltd

[2006] WASCA 150

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Degree of disability
3. › Assessment under Schedule 2
4. › Aggregation of percentages for injuries to different parts of same limb
5. › Whether two or more items of Schedule 2 apply to disability
6. › Whether aggregation permitted where separate injuries to arm at and above elbow and below elbow
7. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D(2)(a)(ii), Sch 2 Items 13, 14
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Common law damages
3. › Threshold degree of disability
4. › Referral of question to Director
5. › Medical evidence requirements under s 93D(6)
6. › Whether medical evidence must link disability to dates nominated in Form 22
7. › Whether causation must be addressed in medical evidence
8. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D(5), s 93D(6)
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Common law damages
3. › Threshold degree of disability
4. › Jurisdictional prerequisite
5. › Nature of Director's screening function under s 93D(6)
6. › Standard of compliance required
7. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D(6)

Quick Take

Where a worker has sustained separate and distinct injuries to different parts of the same limb with different consequences, the percentages for each applicable item of Schedule 2 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) must be aggregated under s 93D(2)(a)(ii) for the purpose of determining whether the degree of disability meets the threshold for common law damages. KB Hutcherson Pty Ltd v Correia does not preclude aggregation in such cases. Medical evidence under s 93D(6) need not link the disability to specific dates nominated in the Form 22, as causation is a matter for the trial judge.