Melino Legal: Marthenis v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia [2024] SASCA 104

Tuesday 10 September 2024

Marthenis v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia [2024] SASCA 104

This case involves an application for permission to appeal on questions of law from a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal, under section 68 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014. Marthenis, a former senior manager, claimed compensation for a psychiatric injury following his suspension and subsequent termination of employment in 2019.

The central issue was whether Marthenis had reached Maximum Medical Improvement (‘MMI’) for the purpose of assessing Whole Person Impairment (‘WPI’) under section 22 of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA). Dr Asokan initially diagnosed Marthenis with an adjustment disorder and determined that his condition was stable, indicating he had reached MMI. Marthenis then chose Dr Jules Begg to conduct his WPI assessment, which resulted in a 27% impairment rating, with Dr Begg confirming that Marthenis had reached MMI. The Return to Work Corporation (the Corporation) accepted Dr Begg’s report and determined that Marthenis did not qualify as a "seriously injured worker," despite a lower assessment by another practitioner.

Marthenis' legal team later argued at a review hearing that Dr Begg had incorrectly applied the MMI standard, especially given subsequent evidence of Marthenis' deterioration. However, the trial judge found that there was no evidence to suggest that Dr Begg had misapplied the concept of MMI or improperly relied on another doctor’s assessment. The judge concluded that the applicant's condition was stable at the time of the WPI assessment, and later deterioration did not invalidate Dr Begg's finding of MMI.

Marthenis sought permission to appeal the decision of the Full Bench, raising three legal questions:

1. Compliance with statutory requirements: Whether Dr Begg had complied with section 22 of the Return to Work Act 2014 and the Impairment Assessment Guidelines (‘IAG’) in assessing Marthenis' condition, particularly considering his later deterioration.

2. Reliance on earlier assessments: Whether Dr Begg was entitled to rely on another practitioner’s assessment made more than three months prior.

3. Extrinsic evidence: Whether the Court could base its findings on evidence outside Dr Begg’s assessment and his own explanation of the assessment.

The Court of Appeal (Justices Doyle and Bleby) refused leave to appeal for the following reasons:

Question 1: This question was not properly raised before the Full Bench, and the argument that Dr Begg misapplied the MMI standard lacked merit. The court noted that determining psychiatric stability is an evaluative judgment, and the trial judge had appropriately found that Marthenis' condition was stable when assessed by Dr Begg. Thus, there was no legal error.

Question 2: This question involved a factual assessment of whether Dr Begg adopted another practitioner's earlier evaluation. The court determined that it did not have the authority to overturn the trial judge’s factual finding that Dr Begg had not improperly relied on another doctor’s assessment.

Question 3: This question, which concerned the use of extrinsic evidence, was unsupported by the grounds of appeal. The court found no basis for considering whether extrinsic evidence had been improperly relied upon.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that none of the three legal questions had been properly raised in the appeal and rejected Marthenis' application for permission to appeal.

Disclaimer: this does not constitute legal advice and we do not represent it to be legal advice. If you seek advice, please contact us on 7093 2350 or mail@melinolegal.com.au