Australia: Timely reminder for satisfying thresholds in Victorian WorkCover serious injury applications

Last Updated: 11 July 2019
Article by Charles Harrison and Nadia Grech

As first published by Lexis Nexis in Australian Civil Liability Journal May 2019. Vol 16 No 1

Sheridan v Victorian WorkCover Authority1 is an appeal heard by Beach, McLeish and T Forrest JJA of the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal on 19 March 2019. The judgment not only provides helpful guidance to practitioners involved in serious injury applications where it is necessary to establish that a plaintiff has suffered "permanent serious impairment or loss of a body function", it also serves as a timely reinforcement of everyday but important organisational principles of a plaintiff's case pre-serious injury hearing (originating motion).

Introduction and summary

By an originating motion filed in the County Court on 28 August 2017, pursuant to s335(2)(d) of the Work- place Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic), the plaintiff sought to bring a proceeding at common law against her employer. The plaintiff claimed pain and suffering damages for personal injury. There was no claim to commence proceedings for economic loss damages.
In order for a plaintiff to bring a claim for common law damages in Victoria, it is necessary to show that they have suffered a "serious injury". The plaintiff relied on one of the threshold definitions for a "serious injury", provided at s 325(1) of the Act, namely that she suffered "permanent serious impairment or loss of a body function".

Judge Murphy (the primary judge), at first instance in the County Court, dismissed the plaintiff's application, stating that he was "not satisfied that the [applicant] has discharged her burden that there is a substantial physical or organic basis for her complaints of spinal and shoulder pain".2 This meant the plaintiff's serious injury application had failed.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and agreed with the relevant findings of the primary judge, being that the plaintiff no longer suffered from a physical right shoulder injury which met the required seriousness threshold of "at least very considerable".

Key points/how does it affect you?

The Court of Appeal provides consideration and guidance to all practitioners in determining whether:

  • a plaintiff is suffering from a physical injury at the time of an application and establishing that there was a substantial physical basis for this injury
  • an injury satisfies the required threshold test of "at least very considerable" and "permanent", as mandated by the Act
  • a plaintiff has undertaken the necessary disentangling of the physical effects of an injury from the psychological effects of an injury

Drilling down further, the decision provides practical everyday tips for practitioners on both sides involved in serious injury applications. These include:

  • asking doctors and medical practitioners questions specifically relevant to key issues in the proceeding, particularly as to causation
  • weight to be given to treating doctor reports and defendant's independent medical reports
  • strategic considerations in the running of an originating motion, including the cross-examination of doctors where the written medical evidence is potentially unclear, particularly as to causation
  • clear and coherent evidence being advanced on behalf of a plaintiff as to the alleged injury


The plaintiff's injury occurred on 12 February 2015 when the plaintiff and two other employees were attempting to close a heavy steel sliding door manually at IGA during the course of their employment. Whilst the plaintiff was pulling the door, it came loose from its tracks and fell forward onto the plaintiff pinning her to the boot of a car nearby. She was pinned in that position before being released.

The plaintiff lost her job at IGA on 18 October 2015. In March 2016, she started working one night a week at a hotel doing bar work and serving tables. In April 2016, she worked for 2 weeks doing cleaning jobs at another hotel but ceased this due to pain in her back, neck and shoulders. She returned to work at the previous hotel undertaking lighter capacity duties, working between 33 to 38 hours per week thereafter.

Basis of the appeal

The plaintiff's appeal was limited for leave to commence a proceeding in relation to her right shoulder. At first instance, the plaintiff had sought leave to commence a proceeding in relation to her spine with an injury to both shoulders or her right shoulder as an additional or alternative basis.

The grounds of appeal were that the primary judge erred in concluding the following:

  • The plaintiff's right shoulder injury had resolved at the time of the application.
  • The plaintiff had not proved that there was a substantial physical or organic basis for her right shoulder injury.

The plaintiff was also of the view (which was not objected to by the defendant) that if it was established that the primary judge erred in the ways contended for as per the appeal, then the Court of Appeal should determine the extent of the consequences of the plaintiff's right shoulder injury and whether those consequences satisfied the statutory test.3


The basis of the plaintiff's appeal is summarised at [63] of the joint judgment. In summary, their Honours found there were two key issues requiring forensic consideration:

  • whether the primary judge was correct to conclude that any physical injury had resolved
  • whether the primary judge was correct to conclude that the plaintiff had not undertaken the necessary disentangling of the physical effects of the injury from the psychological effects of the injury

To succeed in the appeal, the plaintiff would have needed to establish that the primary judge erred on these two bases and further that the "consequences of her continuing physical injury (or substantially physically based injury) were 'at least very considerable' and 'permanent'".4

Substantial organic basis for the pain and suffering consequences/"at least very considerable" test
The threshold under s 325(2)(c) of the Act for a "serious injury" based on "an impairment or loss of a body function" is that:

when judged by comparison with other cases, in the range of possible impairments or losses of a body function, or disfigurements, as the case may be, fairly described as being more than significant or marked, and as being at least very considerable. The Court of Appeal saw as central to the whole case

the issue of:

... whether the judge was wrong to conclude that he was not satisfied that the applicant was suffering from a right shoulder injury that was substantially physically based at the time of the hearing of her application.5 The injury under consideration, for the purpose of the appeal rather than at first instance, was limited to the plaintiff's right shoulder.

Key arguments
It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the evidence "demanded" a conclusion that she sustained an organic right shoulder injury as a result of the incident. The plaintiff relied on:6

  • the reference to right shoulder pain within 5 days of the evidence in clinical notes
  • the opinions of Dr Ong, Mr Pullen, Mr Strintzos and Dr Ho
  • the respondent's acceptance of liability for the plaintiff's right shoulder impairment benefit claim
  • the respondent's formal admission of the occurrence of an organic right shoulder injury in the County Court hearing

It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that injury to the plaintiff's right shoulder (if proven) gave rise to pain and suffering consequences that would meet this threshold.

Evidentiary issues
At [30]–[44], the Court of Appeal reviewed the available medical evidence, as did the primary judge who had noted that there are "two widely disparate threads to the medical material".7

On the one hand, the primary judge identified Dr Ong and Mr Pullen as supportive of the plaintiff suffering a right shoulder injury and Dr Ho and Dr Kostos being supportive of the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was not suffering a right shoulder injury. The Court of Appeal agreed with the primary judge's assessment in this regard, as well as his view that reconciling the competing medical opinions was not easy in circumstances where the doctors had not been called for cross-examination, noting that "this is a well-recognised difficulty associated with proceedings of the present kind".8 It may have been the case that a forensic cross-examination of relevant witnesses would have resulted in a different finding in this regard.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal and the primary judge noted that the evidence advanced on behalf of the plaintiff was somewhat equivocal as the effect and the seriousness of the alleged right shoulder injury. For example, in cross-examination during the appeal, the plaintiff accepted that her main problem at the time of the application was her left shoulder and neck.9

The Court of Appeal gave weight to:

  • the evidence provided by the plaintiff under cross-examination and re-examination which examined the tasks at work she was currently able to maintain — her social and home life. When asked about examples of things at work or in her everyday life that made her symptoms in her back and shoulder change, the plaintiff focused her responses on the difficulties she faced when bending, with reference to the back pain10
  • the evidence of Mr Strintzos and the plaintiff's answers in cross-examination11 and the lack of differentiation between the consequences claimed to have been suffered as a result of injuries to the plaintiff's back, neck, right shoulder or left shoulder12

Comments were also made by the primary judge regarding the report of Dr Ong, the claimant's treater between May 2015 and November 2017, describing Dr Ong's report as "essentially repetitive and discursive... without any rigorous analysis as to whether the original physical injury has resolved".13
The primary judge also noted that Dr Ong did not address the opinion of the physiotherapist who was of the view that the plaintiff's right shoulder injury had stabilised nor the hospital and general practitioner who described the plaintiff's injury as minor.14 The Court of Appeal were seemingly in agreement with the primary judge's opinion and it is evident that more specific questions from the plaintiff's legal representative to Dr Ong (for example), going to the heart of the existence and effect of the injury, would have assisted the court in determining the application. The primary judge also critiqued other evidence advanced on behalf of the plaintiff, including the report of Dr Aliashkevich stating it was premised on an unchanged trajectory of the plaintiff's condition since the accident.15

The Court of Appeal concluded as follows:

  • It was unable to see any error in the primary judge's conclusion that he was not "satisfied that there was an ongoing, substantially physically based, right shoulder injury"16 and, further, that this basis alone was sufficient to defeat the appeal.
  • For the sake of completeness, even if the court had been persuaded as to the above point, they would have concluded that the consequences of that injury were not "at least very considerable" as required by s 325(2)(c) of the Act. They noted:

While the applicant's right shoulder complaints and symptoms as reported by her might fairly be described as "significant" or "marked", the evidence does not persuade us that the impairment (assuming in the applicant's favour that it is a physical impairment) may be fairly described "as being more than significant or marked, and as being at least very considerable".17


The defendant also argued that the evidence did not sufficiently allow for "disentangling" of the physical or organic contributions or psychiatric contributions to the alleged injury, as mandated by s 325(2)(h) of the Act. Section 325(2)(h) of the Act states:

(h) the psychological or psychiatric consequences of a physical injury are to be taken into account only for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of serious injury and not otherwise;
(i) the physical consequences of a mental or behavioural disturbance or disorder are to be taken into account only for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of serious injury and not otherwise ...
Paragraph (c) of the definition of serious injury is "permanent severemental or permanent severe behavioural disturbance or disorder", not "permanent serious impairment or loss of a body function" as was claimed by the plaintiff.

Applying the relevant test outlined in Meadows v Lichmore Pty Ltd18 which itself was borne from the earlier decision in Mutual Cleaning & Maintenance Pty Ltd v Stamboulakis,19 the Court of Appeal agreed with the primary judge's finding that the medical material did not sufficiently allow for a "disentangling" of the physical or organic contributions from the psychological contributions as required,20 which weakened the plain- tiff's chance of satisfying the required "at least very considerable" threshold.

The primary judge found:

In the face of the emphatic conclusion of Drs Kostos and Ho that the plaintiff's physical injury had resolved, and the admitted presence on the plaintiff's own medical evidence of psychological conditions such as chronic pain disorder or syndrome, significant anxiety, and depression, the bald assertion of Dr Alashkevich and Weekes that there are physiological bases for the plaintiff's pain, do not provide a cogent basis to find that the plaintiff has discharged her obligations to disentangle as required by Stamboulakis.21

Again, it is apparent that more specific and relevant questioning to experts may have assisted the plaintiff in disentangling the physical effects of the injury and the psychological effects of the injury. This, in turn, would have assisted the court in its overall determination of the application.


In considering Victorian serious injury applications, this case is a timely reminder to all practitioners, on behalf of either the plaintiff or the defendant, that medical evidence can morph from what was initially understood to be one diagnosis to something very different as time progresses. Adequate care must be given to drafting questions to your doctors and medical and allied health practitioners to distil and crystallise the issues of fact and law, as well as your client's instructions as to their current medical presentation. Whilst this seems obvious, it is of fundamental importance for all practitioners dealing with such claims to keep this at the front of mind.

Whilst the plaintiff may have presented initially with a physical condition, it may have resolved, worsened or in fact morphed into a psychological overlay type of scenario. No matter what the medical presentation might be, taking accurate and up-to-date instructions, as the claim progresses, will inevitably assist in guiding the plaintiff and managing the case for the best outcome possible.


1 Sheridan v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2019] VSCA 54; BC201901910.

2 Sheridan v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2018] VCC 1431.

3 Above n 1, at [7]–[8].

4 Above n 1, at [63].

5 Above n 1, at [64].

6 Above n 1, at [53].

7 Above n 2, at [75].

8 Above n 1, at [48].

9 Above n 1, at [23].

10 Above n 1, at [25]–[29].

11 Above n 1, at [73].

12 Above n 1, at [74].

13 Above n 2, at [95].

14 Above n 2, at [95].

15 Above n 2, at [64].

16 Above n 1, at [65].

17 Above n 1, at [72].

18 Meadows v Lichmore Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA201; BC201311765.

19 Mutual Cleaning & Maintenance Pty Ltd v Stamboulakis (2007) 15 VR 649; [2007] VSCA 46; BC200701733.

20 Above n 2, at [74].

21 Above n 2, at [107].

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions