Amcor PLC v Scardamaglia & Anor

[2023] VSCA 290

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Medical panel
4. › Workplace injury
5. › Industrial deafness
6. › Tinnitus
7. › Whether medical panel erred in failing to consider effect of tinnitus
8. › Whether ASOHNS Guidelines permitted or required limited recourse to AMA Guides (4th ed) for assessing tinnitus
9. › Construction of ASOHNS Guidelines
10. › Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), ss 91(1), (3), (4)
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Assessment of impairment
3. › Industrial deafness
4. › Statutory methodology for assessing diminution of hearing
5. › Relationship between NAL Procedure, ASOHNS Guidelines and AMA Guides
6. › Whether percentage of diminution of hearing under s 91(4) limited to product of NAL Procedure alone
7. › Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), ss 91(3), (4)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of guidelines forming part of statutory scheme
3. › Guidelines written by medical experts for medical practitioners
4. › Whether legalistic interpretation appropriate
5. › Principle that guidelines should be interpreted faithfully to plain words without legalistic overlay

Quick Take

When assessing industrial deafness under s 91(4) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), the ASOHNS Guidelines require medical panels to consider the effect of tinnitus on hearing by reference to the AMA Guides (4th ed), which permits an additional allowance of up to 5% for tinnitus in the presence of hearing loss that impairs speech discrimination. The percentage of diminution of hearing under s 91(4) is not limited to the product of the NAL Procedure alone but includes adjustments required by the ASOHNS Guidelines.