Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

[2009] WASCA 17

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
4. › Credibility of worker
5. › Whether arbitrator entitled to reject medical evidence where factual foundation flawed by dishonest history
6. › Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), ss 93D(10), 93E(1), 93E(3)
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Appeals
3. › Appeal from arbitrator to Commissioner
4. › Whether appeal 'involves' a question of law
5. › Distinction between errors of law and errors of fact
6. › Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 247
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Appeals
3. › Appeal from Commissioner to Court of Appeal
4. › Whether appeal 'on' a question of law
5. › Narrower scope than appeal 'involving' a question of law
6. › Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 254(1)
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Medical reports
4. › Factual foundation of expert opinion
5. › Whether expert opinion unreliable where based on inaccurate or misleading history from patient

Quick Take

An arbitrator assessing degree of disability under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) is entitled to reject medical evidence where the factual foundation of the medical reports is flawed by the worker's failure to disclose material facts (such as undisclosed employment) to the medical practitioners. The Commissioner should afford procedural fairness by giving parties an opportunity to address points not raised in the proceedings before deciding an appeal adversely on such a point.