Commonwealth of Australia v. Whillock, R.B. [1983] FCA 183

Federal Court of Australia|1983-06-24|Before: Northrop JJ, Smithers J

(iii) That the matter be remitted to the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales for re-determination in accordance with the directions of the Federal Court of Australia to consider the matter in relation to s.29 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and the applicability of that section to the provisions of s.27(1)

(b) In respect of the cross appeal herein, the Court reserves the costs thereof but having regard to the nature of the orders in

COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES Between: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA : (Applicant)

(Respondent) Coram: Smithers, St. John and Northrop JJ. 24 June 1983 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SMITHERS J.: Chief Petty Officer Robert John Whillock, an

employee- of the Commonwealth died on 8 May 1977. His widow, Regina Beton Whillock claimed compensation under the

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the

Act) in respect of his death. The claim was rejected by the

delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation who made a determination that the death was not the result of

personal injury arising out of or in the course of the

employment of the deceased, and also, was not the result of the contraction of a disease or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a pre-existing or underlying disease to which

Upon appeal to the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales, a prescribed Court pursuant to s.94 of the Act, the learned Commissioner made a finding that the death was the result of injury arising out of or in the course of the employment of the deceased by the Commonwealth. He set aside the determination of the Delegate and remitted the matter to him with that expression of ""opinion" that the deceased had died as the result of personal injury and that the injury caused to him arose out of or in the course of his

The circumstances of the death of Chief Petty Officer Whillock were set out by the learned Commissioner as

"The deceased was at the time of his death a Chief Petty Officer in the Royal Australian Navy. He was at that time serving upon Her Majesty's Australian ship, "Stalwart" and living in accommodation provided by the Navy at East Hills.

His appointment to "Stalwart" was as a Chief Petty Officer Medical and that appointment required him

"Stalwart" was in dry dock at Cockatoo Island Dockyard.

On Sunday, 8 May 1977 whilst at his home, the deceased complained of low back pain which was of

sufficient intensity to cause him to contact the Naval Hospital at Balmoral and, in due course, to present himself there for examination and such treatment as may have been prescribed. He was taken from East Hills to Balmoral in a Naval ambulance and was examined by Dr. Virant who

prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug and suggested to him that he absent himself from work at least, in the first instance, for a period of a couple of

The deceased was, for whatever reason, reluctant to accept the advice of Dr. Virant and instead was transported from Balmoral to Cockatoo Island, initially by road and then by boat. He boarded his ship by means of a gang plank which probably was on a level plane and then ascended one flight of stairs in order to get to the Petty Officer's mess. It would seem that whilst in the Petty

Officer's mess he was still suffering pain and discomfort in his low back which was not relieved

his changing posture. As a consequence, he attended the sick bay on board the ship which

necessitated his ascending a further flight of steps. The two flights of steps were probably not more than eleven each in number. From the sick bay the course of events which then occurred was that the deceased began the process of disembarking, in fact disembarked, was placed in a

launch for the purpose of being removed to hospital but whilst in the launch he died.

A post-mortem examination was conducted and there seems to be no dispute that the cause of his death was a myocardial infarction caused by an occlusion of his right coronary artery by a thrombus which the examiner thought to be of recent origin."

The precise terms of the coronial finding as to the cause of

"4. In my opinion death had taken place about hours and the cause of death was:-

I DIRECT CAUSE - ) ) Disease or condition ») (a) MYOCARDIAL FIBROSIS directly leading to death ) wee ANTECEDENT CAUSES ) (b) SEVERE CORONARY ARTERY ) ATHEROMA"

«+. The post-mortem examination revealed the presence of a recent thrombus which occluded his right coronary artery. That occlusion prevented the flow of blood to his heart muscle and caused

its necrosis. There was a pathological change brought about to a vital organ of his body. That

well be said that the thrombus was caused by a reaction on his blood passing through degenerate

blood vessels which were diseased. That that is so, in my view, is probably correct. That is to say, he suffered from cardio-vascular disease but nevertheless the effect of the thrombus forming and causing an occlusion brought about physical consequences to his myocardium and damaged it. That, as I have said, in my view constitutes an injury."

This finding is challenged by the appellant. It is argued that within the meaning of the Act neither the thrombus nor the necrosis of the heart muscle was an injury from which the death resulted. It is said that the death resulted from a disease. It is added, but not for decision by this Court, that neither that disease nor any aggravation, acceleration or recurrence thereof was a happening to which any employment of

Under s.27(1) of the Act the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury "arising out of or in the course of" his employment as an employee of the Commonwealth. The extent of that liability is to pay

Under various provisions, including ss.39, 43, 45 and 46, provision is made for compensation to be paid to employees who suffer bodily or mental incapacity of various specified kinds, including death, as a result of injury. In each case the relevant provision is introduced by a phrase such as "where the injury results in" the particular incapacity. Thus, it is provided by s.43(1) "Where an injury to an employee results in the death of the employee ..."; s.45(1) "Where an injury to an employee results in the

employee being totally incapacitated for work ...".

The liability of the Commonwealth under s.27 is imposed only in respect of personal injury which "is caused" to the employee. It was pointed out by Menzies J. in Kavanagh v. The Commonwealth (1959) 103 C.L.R. 547 that the notion that the words "is caused" as used in the Act import a causal connection was rejected in James Patrick & Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Sharpe (1955) A.c. 1. He pointed out also that the word "arising" means no more than "happening". At p.572 of Kavanagh's Case (supra) Menzies J. said "if a worker is

injured while doing something incidental to what he is

employed to do, that is sufficient and no other association

The expression "injury" is defined in s.5 of the Act to mean "any physical or mental injury and includes the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of any physical or mental injury, but subject to s.29 does not include a disease or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease." Section 29 provides that in cases where "an employee contracts a disease or suffers an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease; and any employment of the employee by the Commonwealth was a contributing factor to the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence, as the case may be, whether or not the disease was contracted or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence was suffered in the course of that employment", then the provisions of sub-section 2 of s.29 apply. By para (f) of that sub-section it is provided, inter alia, that if the death of the employee "results from the disease, or from the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence thereof, then, for the purpose of the Act unless the contrary intention appears the contraction of the disease, or the aggravation or recurrence, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be a personal injury to the employee arising out of the employment of the employee by the Commonwealth." Accordingly, in circumstances where death of a Commonwealth employee results from the contraction of a disease or from the

aggravation of such a disease and his employment by the

Commonwealth was a contributing factor thereto, that contraction or aggravation shall be deemed to be not only a personal injury but a personal injury arising out of the

Accordingly, in respect of death of an employee and certain other disabilities suffered by him as the result of an injury as defined in s.5 of the Act the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation provided the injury was one arising out of or in the course of the employment. Also, if the employee's claim is made on the basis that he died as a result of a disease or the aggravation of a disease the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation as though he had suffered an injury, provided that it is established that "any employment" by the Commonwealth of the employee was a contributing factor to the contraction or aggravation of the disease. Herein I use the expression "aggravation" as importing aggravation,

In Mr. Whillock's case the respondent's main submission is that the injury from which his death resulted was the thrombus in the relevant artery. Secondly, reliance is placed upon the necrosis of the heart muscle. As a result of each of these happenings, it is said, the bodily processes necessary to sustain life, in particular, the life of the

It is said the critical injury was the coagulation of blood forming itself into a clot and blocking the passage of blood through the coronary artery so that the heart muscle suffered necrosis by reason merely of the reduction of the blood supply or such reduction combined with some exertion of the heart muscle. It is conceded that the thickening and roughening of the walls of the artery occurred as part of the progression of a disease known as atheroma of the coronary artery and that it had preceded the formation of the clot and was a pre-condition of that happening. Also the Commissioner

suffering for some time from a disease of the arteries, in the

course of which it, became thickened and somewhat roughened on the interior surface. Had that not been the case it is

improbable that the blood would have formed a clot and thereby impeded that passage of blood through the artery. The probabilities are that there would have been a sufficiently large and free opening through the artery to permit the

passage of adequate blood to enable the cardiac muscle to do

Commissioner that the deceased died from injury will support his conclusion that the respondent was entitled to

compensation if it is understood as referring to an injury

which was not a disease. The Commissioner said that in view of his finding the applicant was entitled to compensation pursuant to s.27(1). That sub-section creates an entitlement, in certain conditions, where personal injury is caused to an employee. But if the injury be a disease it is an injury within the meaning of s.27(1) only if some employment by the Commonwealth contributed to its contraction or aggravation. The 'learned Commissioner did not consider whether the employment by the Commonwealth contributed to the thrombus or myocardial infarction or any other aspect of the condition of the deceased. He made no finding with respect to that subject. He did not need to because if the relevant event was as he found it to be, an injury not being a disease, and occurred whilst the deceased was in the course of his employment, that was enough. Clearly, he regarded the injury which he identified as the cause of death, namely the thrombus or the myocardial necrosis as something other than a disease.

But of course the deceased was at all material times a sufferer from a disease with progressive tendencies and which was relevant to the occurrence of the thrombus and occlusion and the myocardial necrosis and the subsequent events causing death of the brain and thus the death of the deceased. In fact the disease was the cause of these events whether or not they be classified as a disease or part of the

disease. The real question before the Commissioner was

whether the death resulted from the disease or from a physical injury, considered as not part of the disease. Of course the thrombus, the occlusion and the myocardial necrosis were injuries in the sense that they caused harm. Also each was an incident of physical degeneration precedent to the myocardial necrosis which led to the ultimate death. So in a sense was the narrowing of the artery itself. To say that each of these was an injury does not assist. To support the reasoning of the Commissioner the injury or injuries he regarded as critical is not significant until it is decided that they were

Whether they were diseases or not may be a difficult question because the definition of disease in s.5 of the Act embraces a wide collection of ailments. The Commissioner said that the injuries which he identified were not incidents of a disease but no reasons for so deciding were given. If the matter is at this stage approached on the basis that they were not, there is a serious question whether in relation to the enquiry posed in s.43(1) of the Act, namely, "from what was it that the death of the deceased resulted" the answer should not be the atheroma which narrowed the artery. The meaning of that question itself depends on the sense in which, in the context of the Act, it is posed. And this particular aspect of the problem is discussed in the observations of Kitto J. in

In Hume Steel Ltd. v. Peart (1947) 75 C.L.R. 242 at

",.. it has never been doubted that disease may amount to an injury. Thus in Innes or Grant v. G. & G. Kynoch (1919) A.C. 765, at p.797 Lord Wrenbury said, 'The man suffered personal injury, for he contracted a disease and it resulted in his

death.' He had said the same in the Court of Appeal in Martin v. Manchester Corporation (1912) 106 L.T. 741, at p.742. 'Contraction of a disease

is an injury; that injury may or may not be by accident.' Again, in Walker v. Bairds and Dalmellington Ltd. (1935) 153 L.T. 322, at p.326 Lord Tomlin, speaking of a chill to a workman

involving bronchopneumonia, said, 'the disease which was the injury was in these circumstances

the result of accident.'" And of course the definition of "injury" in s.5.of the Act reflects these expressions. It proceeds on the basis that disease may, in the ordinary meaning of the word be an injury, but for the purposes of definition, it excludes from the meaning of injury, an injury which is a disease. Accordingly, if the thrombus be a disease it is excluded from references in the Act to "injury" unless the contrary intention appears. A contrary intention does appear in s.29, but only where the employment contributes to the contraction or aggravation of

It is necessary to enquire therefore as to whether the thrombus, or perhaps the necrosis of the heart muscle was a disease. If it were, the conclusion of the Commissioner cannot be sustained. It was said by Latham C.J. in Peart's

"Thus in England it has been held that if the death of a workman is attributable solely to disease, then it cannot be said to be due to accident. In such a case there is nothing unexpected. But the exclusion of such cases from the category of accidental injury does not show that they are to be excluded from the category of injury.

There is a distinction, according to the common use of language, between getting hurt and becoming

sick. The former would be described as an injury and the latter would generally not be so

described. But it requires little analysis to show that an injury may be either external or internal. It appears to me to be difficult to

draw any satisfactory distinction between the breaking of a limb and the breaking of an artery or of the lining of an artery. One is as much an injury to the body, that is, something which involves a harmful effect on the body, as the other. Each is a disturbance of the normal physiological state which may produce physical incapacity and suffering or death. Accordingly, in my opinion the detachment of a piece of the lining of the artery in the present case should be held to be an injury. The death of the worker resulted from that injury."

But it would seem that such "injuries" may be considered to be diseases. Thus in Ogden Industries Pty. Ltd. v. Lucas (1967) 116 C.L.R. 537 the issue concerned an employee who suffered a pulmonary oedema supervening upon an earlier coronary

occlusion. The relevant statutory definition of injury

Workers' Compensation (Amendment) Act 1965 (Victoria) was

mental or physical injury .-. including "(a) a disease contracted ... in the course of employment ... and (b) the recurrence, aggravation or acceleration" thereof. Barwick c.J. said (p.557) "It is said that the deceased suffered a new

physical injury, namely the pulmonary oedema after the

commencement of the amendment Act and of this injury he died -.» As I read the agreed facts, the oedema was but a phase of the aggravated or accelerated cardiac disease; that that is to say it was the manifestation of the injury received in February 1965, and indeed part of it, so much so that the causation of death by that injury was an unbroken chain." In

"It is I consider a false idea of cause and consequence - false that is for present purposes

to isolate a particular pathological condition or episode occurring in the course of the progress of a disease; and then, because it is the condition existing at the point of death, or is an episode which immediately precedes death, to say that from it death results. I have at other times stated my views on this topic. As I have seen no reason to change them I shall not enlarge upon the matter here, merely refer to what I wrote in The Commonwealth v. Butler (1958) 102 C.L.R. 465 at pp.479, 480. Turning to the reference to "a sudden physiological change for the worse": this seems to have become an almost hallowed phrase in workers' compensation law. But neither its meaning nor its proper application has been made clear by the manner of its use here. When the words "injury by accident" were in the Act it served a purpose for the interpretation of that

composite expression. But the word "accident" does not appear now. As the Act now stands two things at least can be said. One is that the

words "physiological change for the worse" do not appear in the Act. The other is that they are not a synonym for injury. A physiological change for the worse means, I suppose, the occurrence of some pathological condition, or the appearance of some symptom or manifestion of a pathological condition. It is not, I take it, a description aptly applicable to anatomical injuries, such as broken bones and cut fingers, and I imagine it would not be aptly applied in functional disorders of the mind - at all events according to the present use of words and the present knowledge of metabolism as affecting mental processes. Whatever application it has must therefore be in relation to the inclusion of diseases in the

definition of injury. I have on other occasions discussed some of the difficulties inherent in these words "sudden physiological change" and I shall not go over the same ground again : see Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co. Ltd. v. Hussey (1959) 102 C.L.R. 482, at p.520; The Commonwealth v. Hornsby (1960) 103 C.L.R. 588, at p.608.

The proposition that the oedema was an injury, depends not on any descriptive phrase derived from judgments in other cases, but on the definition of injury in the amending Act, which had come into operation on Ist July 1965, some days before the

oedema occurred. It seems to me that it is impossible to bring this occurrence within that definition. It was not in itself a disease

contracted in the course of employment. Was it the aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing disease? It seems to me that it cannot be said that it was. "Aggravation" means, I think, that an existing disease has been made worse, not that it has simply become worse."

In Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co. Ltd. v.

Hussey (supra) at p.500 Fullagar J. spoke in accordance with these views. In particular he disagreed with the view expressed by Jordan C.J. in Kellaway v. Broken Hill South Ltd. (1944) 44 S.R. (N.S.W.) 210 at p.216 concerning the situation where there is an acceleration of a disease. In that case the

"If, however, whilst [the workman] is in the course of his employment, the progress of the disease is accelerated or its severity accentuated, by the conditions of the employment, and disability results, he is entitled to receive compensation ... In [this] type of case the disabling stage of the disease is contracted in

the course of the employment and its occurrence is contributed to by the employment."

The statutory provision in Kellaway's Case did not define

injury or disease as including aggravation or acceleration thereof. But the significance of what was said is that the learned Chief Justice treated "the disabling stage of the disease" as a new disease. In the Darling Island Case (supra)

"... it is established that cases of the death of a worker from disease fall within that part of the statutory definition of "injury" which deals with diseases, and compensation is not recoverable unless the disease possesses the characteristics prescribed by that definition. It follows that the dependants of a worker who has died from a disease are not entitled to compensation unless the disease was contracted in the course of his employment or of a periodic journey, and the employment or the journey was a contributing factor to the contracting of it ...

If it were permissible to ignore that part of the definition of "injury" which deals with diseases, it would be permissible to say that the physiological event of the blocking of an artery, if some exertion on the part of the worker had contributed to it, was within an artificial but

established meaning of the term "injury". This was done in Peart's Case (1947) 47 S.R. (N.S.W.) 384. But since Slazengers' Case [1951] A.c. 13; (1950) 51 S.R. (N.S.W.) 1 it ais no longer permissible to reason in this way, and Peart's Case must, in my opinion, be regarded as overruled. A case where the immediate cause of death is a coronary occlusion is unquestionably a death from disease.

Cases of coronary occlusion may perhaps be regarded as possessing peculiar features. But in those cases it is wrong, in my opinion, to regard the coronary occlusion as itself the relevant "disease". The disease is the atheroma or sclerosis or other morbid cardiac or vascular condition which culminated in the occlusion. The view expressed in the second proposition of Jordan C.J. can only be reached by saying that there is a

"contracting" of a disease within the meaning of the definition if the work (or the journey) has

accelerated, or contributed to, the reaching of the final stage of a pre-existing "non-employment" disease. This involves much more than the adoption of a somewhat artifical extension of the ordinary conception of "contracting" in relation to a disease. It seems to me to involve an actual misuse of language. One normally speaks of a

patient as contracting a particular disease - not of his contracting an infinite series of stages of

inadmissible." It may be that in respect of each stage of a disease it is possible to say that from it, subsequent stages thereof, and ultimately death itself, resulted. In such cases there is no more logic in choosing any one or any combination of those sequelae in preference to the atheroma itself. And the respondent cannot show that death was a result of injury excluding the atheroma. If death was the result of all that occurred including the atheroma it is difficult to find a reason for excluding the atheroma as an event from which death resulted. All this suggests that the attempt to link the death exclusively with any one of the events or combination of events following the atheroma, is unsound. And it is in this connection that the foregoing judicial comments are significant. They indicate that an event which is but a step in the progress of a disease is a disease. It is also an injury in the ordinary sense of that word but if it is an injury which is a disease then it is only an injury for the

purposes of s.27(1) of the Act if the employment contributed

to it. Of course under the present definition of disease a

work contributed aggravation or acceleration of a disease is an injury within the meaning of s.27(1). This conclusion would seem to be supported by the decision in The Commonwealth v. Butler (1958) 102 C.L.R. 465 at p.479 where it was pointed out that to give an affirmative answer to the question whether a disability "resulted from" a particular event it is not sufficient that that event may have "contributed to" the

particular event from the totality of circumstances preceding a later event, various adjectives such as "direct", "proximate",

"decisive", "immediate", "effective" and "real," have been pressed into service to qualify "cause". From these there is an easy drift to such term as "material contributing factor". But such formulae do not really dispel the difficulty; and they become especially unsatisfying when death is the alleged consequential event. As death sooner or later is inevitable for every man, it is impossible to ask the question - which in relation to other matters may be helpful, although not decisive - namely, whether the alleged consequence would necessarily occur at all without the happening of the earlier event to which it is sought to attribute it. Moreover, in relation to death, words such as "proximate" and "direct", as tests for choosing some one link in a chain of causation, introduce a special difficulty. For at the point of death ultimate cause and consequence tend to become indistinguishable. It is, for example, easy to say that a man's death resulted from a gunshot wound. In such a case a criminal jury might properly say that death was the result of a felonious act; yet a physician would equaily properly say that the wound caused loss of blood, and that the death resulted from loss of blood. And the inquiry could be pushed a stage further by saying that the loss of blood operated to produce a fatal syncope. It is for this reason that the manner or method by which some particular injury actually operates in relation to the circulatory, respiratory or nervous system may for a physician constitute the proximate cause of death. For

example, in Taylor on Medical Jurisprudence asphyxia is spoken of as the "actual disease" of death by strangulation; and there are in that work many other illustrations of physiological mechanisms, which brought into operation by various events, end in death, being treated as its cause.

A coronary occlusion results in death when it causes such a degree of infarction that the heart ceases to function. Is the occlusion, the infarction or the cessation of the heart-beat the proximate cause of death? In the last analysis it is death itself that slits the thin-spun life.

Yet the application of the statute to the facts of this or any other case does not depend upon metaphysical speculation or the actual physiological circumstances accompanying death. It depends upon asking only whether death resulted from the injury (in this case from the occlusion of September 1955) in the ordinary acceptance of those words. The question obviously involves an . idea of causal sequence. But it tends to misconception if the question that the Act postulates, namely "did death result from the occlusion", be inverted to be "was the occlusion the cause of death". The inversion is merely Linguistic; yet in its inverted form the question somehow seems more prone to attract to its answer expressions such as "contributing factor", which are, it seems to me, only attempts to define or explain an abstract idea by phrases in which the same idea lurks. The words of the statute are more easily applied without exegetical glosses."

Finally it is necessary to consider the observations of Kitto

J. in Ogden's Case (supra) at pp.569, 570, namely:-

"These considerations seem to me to entitle the respondent to succeed, provided that the crucial step be taken of holding that the Act intends a physical disorder which comes into existence merely as a stage in the development of a larger disorder to be considered separately for the purpose of applying the definition of "disease" and the provision of ss.5(1) and 9({1). For my part, though I confess to having wavered on the point, I think that to take that step would be to introduce into the scheme of the Act a conception

so artificial and so removed from the common sense of the matter that compelling words should be required before accepting it. I find no such compelling words. In the present case the mutual admissions are not fairly susceptible, I think, of any other meaning than that what was caused to the worker in his employment was an aggravation and acceleration of the single disorder of coronary artery disease and myocardial degeneration. That was a progressive disorder, and of course the aggravation or acceleration of it was an aggravation or acceleration of every successive manifestation of it; but there was no aggravation or acceleration of oedema save as part of the progressive condition; and the operation of the Act, according to what I think is the sounder construction, is exhausted when its provisions have been applied in respect of the disease consisting of the progressive disorder as a whole."

I would respectfully accept what his Honour said as quite critical in this case. I would link these observations with those of Windeyer J. quoted above. The enquiry posed by s.41 and other sections of the Act relates to disabilities resulting from injuries or diseases in the context of a health-employment relationship between parties. When, with respect to an event for example death, the question is posed whether that event resulted from a particular bodily occurrence, the question is not really answered by isolating one event in a chain of causation, albeit itself constituting an injury, and to say the event resulted from that injury. Really, it did not, if that injury was itself the result of a previous injury or the progress of an existing disease. In the sense relevant to the context in which the question is

asked the only injury which resulted in the disability was

that which transformed the employee's body from a healthy body

able to work to one in which by reason of development of that initial injury or disease the ultimate disability would or did result. The intermediate bodily "injuries" were not those from which the break in employment resulted. The health- employment nexus which is the subject matter of the Act sets the environment in which the questions posed in ss.43, 45 and other similar sections speak. In that environment the answer,

to the relevant question, cannot as a matter of logic exclude

Of course once identified as aggravations of a previously existing disease each of the thrombus, the occlusion and the myociardial necrosis, operates as an injury in its own right, so to speak, but only if the aqqravation was contributed to by the employment. The same is true of the disease itself. It is my view that had the Commissioner approached the problem on the basis that the thrombus, the occlusion or the myocardial necrosis, were incidents of aggravation of a pre-existing coronary artery disease and that

death resulted from such aagravation of the disease such

approach would have been supported by the evidence. On that

basis the question would have arisen as to whether any

employment of the deceased by the Commonwealth was a contributing factor to the aggravation of the disease. The Commissioner did not deal with this question. It is for him to decide on reconsideration pursuant to the order of the

Court. If he had dealt with the question at the hearing and

had answered it in the affirmative there was evidence before him on which such a finding might have been made. Upon such a finding the aggravation of the disease would constitute an injury arising out of the employment of the deceased within

Accordingly the appeal should be allowed and in accordance with s.95 of the Act the matter should be remitted to the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales for reconsideration of the matter on the basis that the thrombus, the occlusion and the necrosis constituted part of a disease, namely coronary artery disease and require consideration in the context of s.29 of the Act. I would reserve the question

Having regard to the nature of the order in this appeal which requires reconsideration of the issues with particular reference to s.29 of the Act it is unnecessary to

That the appeal be upheld and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales

Commissioner for decision of the respondent's claim

prepared by Smithers, J. I agree with the conclusions

My approach to decided cases in the field of workers' compensation is that decisions on the interpretation of Acts other than the one under scrutiny in this appeal are instructive as to the reasoning process but, where the wording differs, are not decisive in the resolution of the particular

The facts and the relevant parts of the Act are fully set out in the judgment of my brother Smithers. Except for section 29, the definition of "injury" draws a clear distinction between "injury" within the meaning of the Act,and the harm or detriment to the body or mind caused by disease. In its ordinary

meaning, "injury" is harm or detriment however caused.

When the learned Commissioner described the formation of, and the consequences of, the thrombus as a "pathological injury", he was expressing a contradiction in terms, having regard to the definition of "injury" in the Act. "Pathological" means pertaining

by the Commissioner of the respondent's claim based

RE ET EG PEER FE PRT A REE TARR TP ATP AN RO ET ERR NE nt We RR

in support of the cross-appeal are adequately dealt

Application remitted to the learned Commissioner

his and the Two 'e®) pie ere a true copy of thse Reasons for Judosent kercin of his Honour '

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSW No. G.94 of 1982

ON APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

BETWEEN: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Appellant and REGINA BETON WHILLOCK Respondent NORTHROP J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 24JUNE 1983

The appellant, the Commonwealth of Australia, appeals from an order of the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales, "the Commission", constituted by a judqe of a prescribed court under the Compensation 'Commonwealth

Government Employees) Act 1971, "the 197] Act". By its

order, the Commission set aside a determination dated 7 May 1980 of a delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and remitted the matter to a deleaate with the expression of opinion contained in its reasons for judament. By the determination dated 7 May 19°07, the celeqate had

disallowed a claim by the resnondent, Reqina Beton Whillock,

for compensation in respect of the death of her husband, Robert John Whillock, "the deceased". The appeal is brouaht on a question of law under s.95 of the 1971 Act. Under

sub-section 24(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976,

the appeal is within the avpellate jurisdiction of the

Federal Court and thus is heard by a Full Court; s.25.

The deceased was a Chief Petty Officer, Medical, in the Royal Australian Navy and thus was an employee under the 1971 Act. He died on 3 May 1977. The respondent's claim for compensation under the Act was disallowed by the deleqate who determined that the death of the deceased was not the result of personal injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, nor was it the result of the contraction of disease or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a pre-existing or underlying disease to which his employment

The Commission, in its reasons for judqment, expressed the opinion that personal injury arising in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth was caused to the deceased and that that injury resulted in the death of the deceased; sub-sections 27/1) and 43/1.) of the 1971 Act. On that opinion, the respondent was entitled to receive compensation under the Act. Accordinaly, the Commission did

not consider whether s.29 of the Act had any application to

of law only"; sub-section °5(1) of the 1971 Act. The

questions of law as stated in the notice of appeal, but

altered to comply with the terminology used in these reasons,

"1. On the Commission's findings of fact did the Commission err in law in finding that the deceased suffered 'personal injury'

Was the Commission bound by the decisions in Slazengers (Australia' Pty. Limited v. Burnett !]951! AC 13 and The Commonwealth

of the 1971 Act was it sufficient for the Respondent to establish merely a temporal

Where the death of an employee results from a disease which was not contracted aggravated accelerated or a recurrence of a disease to which any employment of the employee was a contributina factor can death ve an 'injqury' within sub-section

The appellant has not challenged the findinas of fact made by the Commission. Senior counsel for the

appellant relied upon two main submissions, namely:

l. that the deceased did not suffer personal injury within

that the deceased's death did not result from personal

The second submission was based on the second question of law set out in the notice of appeal. That question and the second submission appear to confuse the provisions of

sub-section 27(1) and sub-section 43(1) of the 1971 Act.

"27.(1) If personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment of an employee

by the Commonwealth is caused to the employee, the Commonwealth is, subject to this Act,

liable to pay compensation in respect of that injury in accordance with this Act."

"43. (1) Where an initury to an employee results in the death of the employee, the

succeeding provisions of this section have effect."

question of law and the second submission were treated as

raising a third issue, namely whether, assumina pyersonal

injury had been caused to the deceased, it was personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment of the deceased: sub-section 27(1). The third question of law set out in the notice of appeal appears to be directed to the third issue. The Commission had expressed the opinion that personal injury arising out of the employment of the deceased was not caused to the deceased. Accordingly, the third issue before this Court as raised by the notice of appeal is whether, if the first question is answered in the affirmative, the personal injury so caused to the deceased

arose in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth.

At the time of his death, the deceased was serving in H.M.A.S. "Stalwart". For a number of years he had been suffering from arterio-sclerosis, a disease of the coronary arteries resulting in a roudhening and thickeninq of the interior lining of the arteries and a loss of elasticity of the arteries. Some years before his death, the deceased had suffered a coronary infarct. Thereafter the deceased was suffering from necrosis or death of some part of his heart muscle. The reasons of the Commission contained the

"A post-mortem examination was conducted and there seems to be no dispute that the cause of his death was a myocardial infarction caused by an occlusion of his richt cororary artery by a thrombus which the examiner thoudht to he of recent oriqin.

The post-mortem examination revealed the presence of a recent thrombus which occluded his right coronary artery. That occlusion prevented the flow of blood to his heart muscle and caused its necrosis. There was a pathological change brought about to a vital organ of his body. That event, in my view, constituted an injury. It may well be said that the thrombus was caused hy a reaction on his blood passing throuqh deqenerate blood vessels which were diseased. That that is so, in my view, is probably correct. That is to say, he suffered from cardio-vascular disease but nevertheless the effect of the thrombus forming and causing an occlusion brought about physical consequences to his myocardium and damaged it. That, as I have said, in my view

The appellant does not dispute that there was evidence before the Commission from which the Commission could make those findings, but contends that as a matter of law those findings cannot be used to support an opinion that

personal injury was caused to the deceased, in this case the

"... any physical or mental injury and includes the aagravation, acceleration or recurrence of any physical or mental] injury but, subject to section 29, does not include a disease or the aagravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease:"

",.e. uncludes any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition, whether of sudden onset or gradual development:"

To aive effect to those provisions, the extended meaning to

",e any physical or mental injury and includes the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of any physical or mental injury but, subject to s.?9, does not include a disease, including any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition, whether of sudden onset or qradual development, or the aqaqravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease, including any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect er morbid condition, whether of sudden onset or qradual development ..."

These definitions are not helpful. The word "injury" is defined by reference to the word "injury" while the word "disease" 1s given an extended meanina, there being no definitive meaning. In both cases it is necessary to

determine what meaning is to be aiven to the words "injury"

Great care must be exercised when considering authorities based upon defined statutory provisions. In other legislation, relevant definitions of those words have

from time to time been varied and in any case are defined in terms different from those contained in the 1°71] Act. Where the word "injurv" has heen definedA to include a

disease, the word "disease" normally has been defined to mean

an employment-related disease only and thus has had a

restrictive effect on the meaning to be qiven to the word

"injury". Authorities based on other leqislation therefore may be misleading. A reference to the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930, "the 1930 Act", Illustrates

the problem. In the 1930 Act the word "disease" was defined

",.. any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition, whether of sudden or gradual development, and also includes the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a pre-existing disease;"

«es any physical or mental iniury and includes the aagravation, acceleration or recurrence of a pre-existing injury:"

It is noted that disease was not excluded from the meaning to be given to the word "injury". This was unnecessary because of the nature of the liability to pay compensation imposed upon the Commonwealth by the 1930 Act. Section 9 of the 1930 Act imposed a liability on the Commonwealth to pay compensation if personal injury by accident arisina out of or in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth was caused to an employee. Section 19 of the 193M Act imposed a liability on the Commonwealth to pay compensation where the

employee was sufferina from a disease, or the death of an

employee was caused by a disease, and the disease was due to the nature of the employment in which the employee was

The 1971 Act came into operation in September 1971 and replaced the 1930 Act. The 1971 Act altered substantially the nature of the liability previously imposed on the Commonwealth by s.10 of the 1930 Act. Under the 1971 Act the liability to pay compensation for an injury is imposed by sub-section 27(1). This has been set out. The former separate liability to pay compensation for death or incapacity resulting from a disease as imposed by s.10 of the 1930 Act has not been continued. Under the 1971 Act, where the conditions prescribed by s.29 are satisfied, the contraction of the disease or the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of the disease "shall be deemed to be a personal injury to the employee arising out of the employment

of the employee by the Commonwealth"; paragraph 29/2)(f).

Similarly, great care must be taken in considering earlier authorities based on the 1939 Act. Many of them were directed to issues of whether an injury to an employee resulted in the death of the employee 'see now s.43/1\ of the 1971 Act) or total or partial siuncapacity {see now sub-sections 451) and 46/1) of the 1971 Act) or were in reality a non work-related disease resultina in the death or

incapacity of the emplovee. [In some respects, the provisions

of the 1971 Act are less stringent than those of the 1930

Act; see Johnston v. Commonwealth of Australia (1982) 43

In its normal meaning the word "injury" is apt to describe a discrete event occurring in the course of the progression of a disease. This view is supported by

reference to authority. In Hume Steel Ltd. v. Peart (1947)

75 C.L.R. 242, the High Court had to consider this type of question. That was a journey case under New South Wales' legislation. While journeying to work, the respondent's husband suffered a coronary occlusion as a result of which he

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (340 paragraphs)

Cited By (1)