Home | © 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

Injury, disease

Fletcher Int'l Exports v Barrow & Anor [2007] NSWCA 244, Mason P, Santow & Tobias JJA agreeing.

On the availability of the disease finding, the President said [61]: "The failure of an area of the body to cope with repeated stress imposed upon it, leading to pain and loss of function is capable of being found to be a disease process: see generally Armao v Ladue Holdings PL (1992) 8 NSWCCR 440; Perry v Tanine PL t/as Ermington Hotel (1998) 16 NSWCCR 253.

"There was in the present case a substantial body of medical evidence as to the nature and origin of the worker's condition which allowed the Commission to conclude that the injury process as disclosed by the evidence was a disease. The evidence was also capable of showing that the disease had been aggravated by the nature and conditions of the work."

Velevski v Auburn City Council [2008] NSWWCCPD 83. Keating P. 

Referring to the disease injury provision, Keating P said [58]: "The test to be applied in determining injury under s 4(b)(ii), is that set out by the High Court in Federal Broom Co PL v Semlitch (1964) 11 CLR 626, where Kitto J said, at 635: "Moffitt J was right, I think, in saying: 'There is an exacerbation of a disease where the experience of the disease by the patient is increased or intensified by an increase or intensifying of symptoms. The word is directed to the individual and the effect of the disease upon him rather than being concerned with the underlying mechanism'."

The Disease Provisions, by Mr Craig Bell, of TurksLegal: please click >> 

Previous page: Injury, consequential injury     Next page: Injury, diseases deemed work related

© 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample