Case law summary
In this matter it was found that the General Medical Assessment
Tribunal did not provide the Employer with natural justice prior to
making its decision and their decision was quashed.
CSR Limited v General Medical Assessment Tribunal
- Thoracic & Anor [2010] QSC 321
This decision was issued out of the Supreme Court of Queensland on
3 September 2010.
In this matter the Claimant lodged an application for compensation
with his employer, CSR Limited, for an injury described as
'bagassosis'.
This claim was rejected by the self-insured employer and when it
was reviewed by Q-COMP it was determined that the decision should
be set aside and the matter referred to the General Medical
Assessment Tribunal (GMAT) to consider if there was a work related
injury to which employment was a significant contributing
factor.
Tribunal decision
This referral was made to the GMAT - Thoracic which determined
that:
- it was difficult to ascertain a positive diagnosis of
bagassosis due to a number of factors
- the Claimant had worked in his job for a long time and gave a
clear history of exposure to bagasse and other dusts and that an
occupational cause for his lung condition could not be
excluded
- the Claimant sustained a work related injury secondary to
prolonged exposure to a variety of dusts in the workplace
environment
- the nature of the injury is chronic interstitial pneumonitis
with fibrosis secondary to occupational workplace dust
exposures.
Grounds for Judicial Review
CSR made application to the Supreme Court of Queensland for
Judicial Review of the GMAT's decision on the following
bases:
- the GMAT failed to afford the Applicant natural
justice because it did not provide CSR with an opportunity
to present information in respect of 'occupational workplace dust
exposure'
- the GMAT failed to provide reasons which adequately disclosed a
proper basis for its decision that the injury was
secondary to occupational workplace dust exposure
- the GMAT applied the wrong legal test when
determining the reference.
Natural Justice
CSR argued that the reports of Dr Douglas, Dr McEvoy and Dr Hopkins
indicated variously a low exposure to bagasse spores, no history of
exposure to dust, fumes or chemicals likely to have caused lung
disease and no exposure to dusts that may be implicated with
interstitial lung disease such that it should have been obvious
that the finding of the GMAT was not open to it.
CSR argued that the evidence prior to the consideration by the
Tribunal was that the Claimant either had bagassosis caused only by
spores from wet bagasse or interstitial lung disease which was not
caused by exposure to dust.
His Honour, Justice Martin, concluded that in this instance the
Tribunal did proceed upon an assumption not previously established
that the Claimant had a prolonged exposure to a variety of dusts.
In order for the Tribunal to have properly drawn this conclusion
they would have needed evidence before them to support that
assumption and had relied upon the Claimant's evidence in that
regard.
His Honour concluded that the extent of exposure was not a 'medical
matter' but rather a finding of fact which should have been
referred to the Applicant for comment or further evidence before it
was used as the basis of their decision.
Failure to provide reasons
His Honour was satisfied that the Tribunal had satisfied the
appropriate standard with respect to the reasons it gave,
identifying a number of factors upon which it relied upon to lead
it to its conclusion. His Honour also cited case law:
- indicating the requisite level of adequacy of reasons had to be
considered in light of the nature of the question posed to the
decision maker and the decision maker's functions, talents and
attributes.1
- establishing that sufficient reasons would be such that enabled
a court and the parties to see how a decision maker had arrived at
their decision in accordance with their statutory functions.
2
Wrong legal test
His Honour did not agree with the Applicant's interpretation of the
Tribunal's intention in stating that an occupational cause for the
Claimant's lung condition was not excluded, concluding instead that
this was merely a reference to the 'negative findings' regarding
the Claimant's condition. He was therefore not satisfied that the
Tribunal had applied the wrong test.
Decision
His Honour's decision was to overturn the Tribunal's decision and
that the reference should be remitted back to the Tribunal to
proceed according to law.
1Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Lease Tribunal
[1996] 2 Qd R 462 at 484-5
2 Masters v McCubbery [1996] 1 VR 635
