Edwards v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia [2026] SAET 7

(1) The Tribunal may give directions at any time in any proceedings and do whatever is necessary for the speedy and fair conduct of the proceedings.

(2) The Tribunal may give directions on its own initiative or at the request of a party.

(3) A directions hearing may be held for the purposes of this section before any other hearing in any proceedings.

(4) The Tribunal may give a direction requiring a party to produce a document or other material, or to provide information, to the Tribunal or another party.

1. Section 92 of the SAET Act empowers the Tribunal to make rules that regulate the practice and procedure of the Tribunal[7] and to deal with any matter necessary and expedient for the effective and efficient operation of the Tribunal.[8] Rule 56 of the SAET Rules addresses the discovery of documents.
2. The rules of the Tribunal generally relating to summonses appear in Part 13 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 (the SAET Rules). Rule 60(2) provides that a summons to produce documents, or evidentiary material, may be issued to a person or body not a party to a proceeding without permission provided there is a legitimate forensic purpose for issuing the summons. Rule 61(1) provides that a person served with such a summons must comply with it unless there is a lawful excuse for not doing so. Rule 62 provides for the procedure to be followed where a person in receipt of a summons objects to complying with the summons.
3. Rules 60 to 62 of the SAET Rules are of general application and where leave of the Tribunal is not required.
4. Part 22 of the SAET Rules incorporates rules of the Tribunal where the RTW Act applies. Rule 149 modifies the operation of rules 60 to 62 in circumstances of a claim for compensation for a work injury under the RTW Act. It provides:

E. Summonses for medical records

1. Procedure to be followed where medical records are summonsed

(1) In a proceeding under the Return to Work Act 2014, other than an action for recovery of compensation under sections 66(5) or 66(6), a party must not issue a summons for production of a person's medical notes, imaging, reports or other documents (medical records) without permission of the Tribunal.

(2) If the Tribunal grants permission to issue a summons for medical records under this rule the application for the summons must be accompanied by evidence of payment of $100 or such other amount as may be prescribed from time to time to the recipient of the summons.

(3) When summonsed medical records are provided to the Registry, a registrar must give the person to whom the medical records relate 7 days, or such lesser time ordered by a Tribunal member, to consider the records before they are released to the party issuing the summons and any other party to the proceeding.

(4) A person whose medical notes are summonsed may apply to the Tribunal to limit the extent of the medical notes released or to have part of the medical notes redacted if they are not relevant to the proceeding.

(5) All parties to a proceeding must be advised of an application made under sub-rule (4) but the application may be made ex parte and need not be served on any other party unless the Tribunal orders otherwise.

(6) In considering an application made under sub-rule (4) a Tribunal member may have regard to all medical records produced in response to a summons and may order the non-release or redaction of such part of the medical notes that are not relevant to a proceeding.

1. In exercising the discretion as to whether to grant leave for medical records to be summonsed, the Tribunal will have regard to r 149(3) of the SAET Rules. Where medical records are produced to the Tribunal, it is pursuant to an order of the Tribunal granting leave. Where there is production to the Tribunal of medical records, any inspection is subject to directions that may be made by the Tribunal member that granted the leave. Inspection by the parties is separate from production to the Tribunal.[9] A worker will ordinarily have the opportunity to inspect the documents first and, if considered appropriate, make application ex-parte for an order that would restrict inspection by another party of the medical record as produced to the Tribunal.[10] In determining whether leave should be granted for the summonsing of medical records, more than one approach has been approved by the courts. They have included asking whether the production of the medical record may have a legitimate forensic purpose and another is to ask whether the documents would have an apparent relevance to an issue to be tried.[11] The relevant provisions and legal principles are to be applied having regard to the particular circumstances of each case.

1. There are a number of determinations of the Corporation which are the subject of an application for review by Mr Edwards. They have been proceeding to hearing an determination concurrently. For the purpose of the current application for directions, it suffices to note that the primary issues between the parties concern the compensability of claimed work injuries affecting various parts of the body, including the upper and lower digestive systems, the left hand, the left arm, left shoulder, both knees, the right ankle, the lower back, the chest, and a claimed bilateral leg infection. There are issues as to the extent to which the claimed work injuries have stabilised and have reached maximum medical improvement. If they have, then there are issues as to the extent of any permanent impairment arising from those claimed work injuries. It is evident from the submissions received from the Corporation that at least the reliability of Mr Edwards, insofar as medical practitioners have relied upon history received from him in expressing their opinions, is an issue.

1. In its initial written submissions, the Tribunal's attention was invited to Mr Edwards' affidavit of evidence which was affirmed on 10 December 2025. The Corporation referred specifically to the following:
   • He was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis a "few years ago", but did not have any symptoms apart from occasional swelling on his knee and was subsequently told that the "diagnosis was incorrect" (p3, [18]).
   • He has a vague memory of a left foot injury and a diagnosis of cellulitis in 2007, but the cellulitis resolved after a few days and he went back to work (p3, [20]).
   • He does not have any memory of leg ulcers and, while he believes that he was having recurrent leg ulcers in 2020, he does not recall having "been given any creams to apply or stockings given" (p3, [22]).
2. The Corporation submitted that there appears to be a difference of expert opinion between Dr Myers and Dr Rowlands as to the precise diagnosis, date of onset, and causation of what was referred to by Dr Suyapto in his permanent impairment assessment report dated 29 September 2025, as 'right lower limb cellulitis with chronic venous insufficiency'.
3. It was submitted that Dr Rowland describes in a report a presentation of an acute infection with cellulitis in November 2021 as a "first episode" and that Dr Rowland had recorded a history of Mr Edwards not having needed an admission to hospital for cellulitis or infection involving his legs. It was contended the statement appears to be contradicted at paragraphs 20 and 22 of Mr Edwards' affidavit of evidence and the content of other documents within the clinical record of the Lyell McEwin Hospital (LMH) which have been inspected by the parties.
4. The Corporation also referred to the opinion of Dr Myers to the effect that Mr Edwards' chronic venous insufficiency predates the claimed work injury to his hand of March 2021 and his opinion that Mr Edwards' experience of recurrent infections are unrelated to that claimed injury.
5. The Corporation identified as issues to be determined by the Tribunal at trial to include the onset, diagnosis and cause of the claimed work injury to the lower limb.
6. Reference were made to some records including the medical record of the LMH as to references potentially to episodes of cellulitis and/or recurrent ulceration in the past.
7. It was submitted that the existing medical records are insufficient to understand whether Mr Edwards was presenting with relevant symptoms and signs in 2007, 2018, and 2020. In relation to the records of the RAH, the Corporation noted that some records have already been produced to the Tribunal but they relate to an admission in 2022 and it was contended that there is a legitimate forensic purpose in inspecting the clinical record of the RAH relating to any attendance before and leading to the date of the right hand injury and the existing evidence discloses an admission in 2018 during which Mr Edwards appears to have been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.
8. The Corporation further submitted that, in the context of potentially relevant episodes of cellulitis or other leg infections before March 2021 there would be a legitimate forensic purpose in inspecting the records of any general practitioner that may have been consulted by Mr Edwards before March 2021.

1. As noted above, Mr Edwards has consented to the whole of the clinical record of the Fields Medical Centre being the subject of a Summons to Produce.
2. In relation to the Elizabeth Medical Centre, where Mr Edwards consulted a Dr Boon, Mr Edwards submitted that he did not object to leave being granted but on condition that the leave be restricted to the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007. He submitted that the clinical record of the LMH shows that the provisional diagnosis of cellulitis was made following an injury sustained by Mr Edwards only three days prior to his attendance at the hospital. Mr Edwards submitted that the clinical record of the LMH also demonstrates that the infection was short-lived.
3. Mr Edwards opposed leave being granted to summons the clinical record of the Klemzig Village Medical Centre on the basis that he had provided the Corporation with a link to copy the entirety of the records by letter dated 13 October 2025.
4. In relation to the clinical record of the RAH, Mr Edwards submitted it is accepted that he suffered, as a pre-existing non-work-caused condition, deep venous insufficiency of the lower limbs and he also accepts that he suffered from acute infection with cellulitis in the lower limbs in the past. Mr Edwards referred to neither Dr Rowland nor Dr Myers having diagnosed him as suffering with rheumatoid arthritis as being significant. He contended that is consistent with his affidavit of evidence where he states that he was subsequently told the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was incorrect. Further, Mr Edwards observed that he has not made a claim for compensation for such a condition. On that basis, it was submitted that any clinical record of the RAH referring to rheumatoid arthritis would not be relevant to an issue to be tried in the proceedings and would not constitute "evidentiary material" within the meaning of s 33 of the SAET Act. For those reasons the primary position of Mr Edwards is that the application for leave to summons the clinical record of the RAH should be refused. If that submission is rejected then Mr Edwards advanced an alternative submission. It was that any leave should be restricted for the period 1 January 2018 to 21 March 2018. He referred to the 2018 calendar year as being the relevant year of possible diagnosis. The end date of 21 March 2021 was determined on the basis of when Mr Edwards was advised that the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was incorrect and that it was before the claimed work injuries of 22 March 2021.

1. The Corporation advanced some further submissions in reply. The Corporation advanced three main submissions. Firstly, the Tribunal should not proceed on the basis of an acceptance of the veracity of Mr Edwards' claims before he is cross-examined about them. Reference was made to assumptions made by Dr Rowland by way of acceptance of history obtained from Mr Edwards in formulating the opinions expressed in that doctor's report. To the extent Mr Edwards intends to rely upon the opinion of Dr Rowland at trial, the Corporation's case is that Dr Rowland assumed that the first infection suffered by Mr Edwards occurred in November 2021 and the Corporation's case is that the assumption was in error.
2. Secondly, the Corporation noted that in the absence of the production to the Tribunal of the clinical record of the LMH, the Corporation, and the Tribunal, would not have been aware of the history of admission and diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis at the RAH on or about 18 September 2018. This was referred to as an illustration of a record giving rise to a line of enquiry which has a legitimate forensic purpose.
3. Thirdly, the record of admission to the LMH in 2007 for possibly cellulitis or other infection affecting the lower limbs gives rise to a legitimate line of enquiry with other hospitals where it is noted that Mr Edwards may have attended. The Corporation submitted that it would also be possible for Mr Edwards to have subsequently sought medical advice from a medical clinic rather than a hospital in relation to similar symptoms and signs.
4. The Corporation also noted that, contrary to Mr Edwards position of a misdiagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, that condition is listed in a referral letter from his general practitioner dated 20 May 2022, as a "Current Problem".
5. The Corporation stated that whilst Mr Edwards now asserts that he was told the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was incorrect, he has not disclosed and produced any clinical record to confirm the misdiagnosis.
6. The Corporation also stated that part of its case will be that patients with rheumatoid arthritis may develop leg ulcers and that such ulcers are often painful and may persist for years. On that basis, any medical records relating to a presentation with ulcers or a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis is an issue appropriately to be explored at trial.
7. Finally, in relation to Mr Edwards' submission by reference to s 33 of the SAET Act, the Corporation relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Nieuwenhuizen and that the test is by reference to the apparent relevance test rather than the establishment of the evidence being directly relevant to an issue to be tried. It is in that context that "evidentiary material" for the purpose of s 33 of the SAET Act is to be considered.

1. By email transmission forwarded on 23 January 2026 Mr Edwards sought leave to provide further submissions in response to the further submissions provided by the Corporation the previous day. Leave was sought to address two matters. The first, related to the relevance of the rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis and the second related to the decision in Nieuwenhuizen. Mr Edwards submitted that although the first matter relates to the facts, it arises from submissions in reply which Mr Edwards contended should have been raised in the Corporation's first submissions.
2. The further submissions of Mr Edwards in relation to the relevance of the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis have two parts. The first relates to the medical reports provided by Dr Myers and Dr Rowland. Those submissions, together with the submission in relation to the decision in Nieuwenhuizen, do not go beyond the scope of the submissions received from the Corporation and I grant leave to advance those submissions. The second part of the submission relating to the relevance of the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis purports to rely upon "information from the Clevland (sic)Clinic". The submission is that the document produced "confirms that ulcers are a sign of chronic venous insufficiency". The document produced appears to have been sourced via internet on 23 January 2026. There is no evidence or submission as to what the Cleveland Clinic is or of its standing in Australia. The person or persons who prepared the document is or are not identified. At the end of the document a number of articles are referred to. There is no evidence of Mr Edwards having consented to the use of the document in further submissions. To receive the submission based upon the document would require affording the Corporation an opportunity to address the document. From the proposed submissions, Mr Edwards seeks to rely upon the article for the purpose of confirming what he submits is the opinion of both Dr Myers and Dr Rowland. In all the circumstances, leave is granted to Mr Edwards to advance his further submissions in relation to the relevance of the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis apart from the Cleveland Clinic article, and leave is granted in relation to the decision in Nieuwenhuizen. Those submissions may be summarised as follows:
   1. As already noted, Mr Edwards submits that there is no dispute that he had lower leg ulcerations and that both Dr Myers and Dr Rowland consider the cause of those ulcerations to be his pre-existing non-occupationally-caused venous insufficiency.
   2. He submits that in any event, regardless of the medical process giving rise to the ulcers, as a matter of law, they have been caused by the infection to the hand which is a work injury.
   3. In these circumstances, the RAH records are not either relevant or potentially relevant to the issues in dispute in the proceedings. On that basis there is no legitimate forensic purpose and Mr Edwards further contends that the records would no constitute "evidentiary material" as required by s 33 of the RTW Act.
   4. With respect to the decision in Nieuwenhuizen, Mr Edwards has not taken issue with its application. He sought to make clear that at no stage has he contended that it is a prerequisite to the issue of a summons that the records be admissible in evidence.

1. It is convenient to commence with some observations. Firstly, the evidence referred to by the parties, and particularly the medical reports of Dr Myers and Dr Rowland, are being considered in the context of an interlocutory application. The evidence is untested and no concluded findings may be made. The Court can have regard to any opinion reasonably contained in a report where another medical expert may express a contrary opinion. Secondly, the submissions are to be understood in the context of the stage of the proceedings. On its case, the submissions of the Corporation with respect to the medical reports of Dr Myers and Dr Rowland are necessarily tentative. It contends the reports of both Dr Myers and Dr Rowland contain opinions that are reliant upon the accuracy of the history obtained from Mr Edwards and at trial the Corporation will put in issue his reliability as a historian. The report of Dr Rowland referred to by the parties is dated 19 June 2025. It was commissioned by Mr Edwards' solicitors. In her report, Dr Rowland acknowledges the importance of a reliable history in the opinions that she has expressed. She states that she has assumed that Mr Edwards has been truthful in his account of the events experienced and of his recent and past history, to the best of his ability. She refers to the possibility of error and notes in her report that most of the events discussed occurred in 2021, being more than four years prior to Mr Edwards' consultation with her. It follows that Mr Edwards memory at the time of events prior to 2021 would have been, if anything, more susceptible to possible error. Thirdly, this matter is proceeding in the Tribunal sitting as the South Australian Employment Court. Whilst in an appropriate case the Court may modify the application of the rules of evidence, they do ordinarily apply.[12] The proof of assumption rule exists at common law.[13] Whether a failure to comply with the rule results in inadmissibility of the opinion in evidence or gives rise to a consideration of the weight to be attached to the evidence in such circumstances, it is to be considered.[14]
2. The theory advanced by Dr Rowland involves several steps. The first is that Mr Edwards had pre-existing deep venous insufficiency involving the deep veins of his lower legs. The second is that the deep venous insufficiency resulted in abnormal skin (lipodermatosclerosis) on his lower legs which was easily damaged by minor trauma. Thirdly, in March 2021 Mr Edwards suffered a high pressure blast injury at work to his right hand which required surgical debridement. Fourthly, the surgery was followed by a post-operative infection with methicillin-sensitive (flucloxacillin-sensitive) staphylococcus aureus. Fifthly, the hand wound was left open and healed slowly over the next two months during which Mr Edwards did many of the wound dressings himself and, during that period, was also applying moisturising cream to the skin of his lower legs. Sixthly, as the fragile skin to the lower legs was easily damaged by minor trauma, it then allowed an entry point for the staphylococcus aureus to be transferred by Mr Edwards from the hand as he was replacing bandages to the legs as he was applying cream. Dr Rowland stated that the subsequent infection of the skin to the legs is known as cellulitis. The theory takes into account the history obtained from Mr Edwards. That includes a history that prior to the hand infection, Mr Edwards had never needed an admission to hospital for cellulitis or infection involving his legs. It is unclear as to whether Dr Rowland was informed of the presentation to the LMH on 8 May 2007 where the diagnosis is recorded in the hospital record as cellulitis. Neither the attendance nor clinical record is referred to.
3. Mr Edwards has filed and served his affidavit of evidence to be received as his evidence in chief at trial. In paragraph 20 he refers to a cut to his left foot in 2007. He states that he was diagnosed with cellulitis, was treated with intravenous antibiotics and analgesics and that the cellulitis resolved after a few days. In paragraph 22 he refers to an attendance at the LMH in 2020 for recurring leg ulcers. In its submissions the Corporation referred to the opinion of Dr Myers. It contends that Dr Myers will give evidence that the cause of the recurrent infections is the pre-existing condition of chronic venous insufficiency and not the work injury to the hand.
4. In her report, Dr Rowland recognises that both history and medical records are information to be integrated with her experience as an infectious disease physician and then synthesised to form an opinion regarding diagnosis, causation, treatment, and prognosis.
5. Dr Rowland expresses the opinion that the combination of the "initial infection" (which appears to be a reference to infection following the hand injury) in combination with the chronic irreversible skin changes to Mr Edwards' lower legs has now resulted in recurrent episodes of acute infection involving the lower legs. Her prognosis is that Mr Edwards will now continue to suffer from episodes of acute infection involving his lower legs at a rate of at least two or three episodes per year. Evidence of an infection of the legs prior to the work injury in March 2021 and when irreversible skin changes of Mr Edwards' lower legs first became established are matters which may be appropriately explored in cross-examination with Dr Rowland.
6. There is a legitimate forensic purpose to seek the production of medical records which may contain references to an attendance related to venous insufficiency of the legs including a presentation with ulcers and possibly an infection of the legs. They are matters relevant to issues of diagnosis, causation, and entitlements to compensation dependent upon findings at trial in relation to those issues. The apparent relevance test would also be met.
7. Relevant to the submissions relating to the possible diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and its potential relevance to the ulceration and infection experienced to the legs, is the separation summary of the LMH dated 12 December 2021, which relates to an admission of Mr Edwards on 29 November 2021 and a separation date of 30 November 2021. It refers to a presentation with a wound ooze from a right knee wound site for which there had been an incision and drainage on 26 November 2021. A possible infection was treated intravenously and the plan refers to further medication for five days for "R lower limb cellulitis". The document addresses possible relevant conditions. The first is right lower leg cellulitis and the second is the possibility of rheumatoid arthritis. The document refers to a past diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis at the RAH, treatment with methotrexate for six months without improvement and a reference to a proposed repeat rheumatological screen and for the result to be discussed with a consultant if a rheumatology referral was required. The relevant date of diagnosis at the RAH is not stated but there is a reference to a medical investigation undertaken on 18 September 2018. As submitted by the Corporation, Mr Edwards has not referred to evidence of what happened after the discharge from the LMH, has not proven a medical opinion thereafter that he does not have rheumatoid arthritis and the Corporation has referred to the "current status" in the record of a general practice clinic on 9 September 2020. There is a legitimate forensic purpose in exploring the medical records identified by the Corporation to ascertain whether there are other references to rheumatoid arthritis and if there are, whether they indicate a possible connection between that condition and the ulceration and infection of the legs experienced by Mr Edwards. The apparent relevance test relating to issues of diagnosis, causation and potential entitlement to compensation is also satisfied.
8. The Fields Medical Centre, the Elizabeth Medical Centre and the Klemzig Medical Centre are medical centres where Mr Edwards consulted a general practitioner. In all the circumstances which includes Mr Edwards' evidence that he had a presentation of cellulitis affecting his legs in 2007, the whole of the clinical record of each of the medical centres is appropriately the subject of a summons to produce documents. The submission that the Corporation was given a link which enables it to access the medical record of the Klemzig Village Medical Centre was not conceded by the Corporation.
9. The submissions of Mr Edwards relating to the clinical record of the RAH do not have sufficient regard to his own affidavit evidence in the context of the opinion of Dr Rowland. He has accepted he has experienced ulceration and infection of his legs in the past. As I understand Dr Rowland's report, where there is a break in the skin of the body, opportunistic organisms can enter and cause infection. She refers to chronic venous insufficiency giving rise to fragile skin which is then easily damaged by minor trauma, allowing an entry point for such organisms. A point may be reached where recurrent episodes of infection then follow. An issue in this case is when that point was reached and that includes whether it was reached before the work injury to the hand in March 2021.
10. In his affidavit when addressing episodes relating to his legs in the past, Mr Edwards uses phrases including "I have a very vague memory of...", "I do not recall the exact details..." and "I do not have any memory of...". His affidavit of evidence does not exclude the possibility of entries apparently relevant to an issue to be tried in the medical records that are the subject of the Corporation's application. As noted earlier in these reasons, the current application relates only to whether the documents which are the subject of the application should be produced to the Tribunal. It is then for the Tribunal to determine, noting r 149 of the SAET Rules, the extent to which the parties should be afforded an opportunity to inspect the clinical record as produced.
11. The application of the Corporation should be granted as sought.

1. Leave is granted to the respondent Return to Work Corporation of South Australia to summons the following medical records relating to the applicant in the proceedings Scott Edwards:
   1. The complete medical record of the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
   2. The complete medical record held by general practitioner Dr Al Sharshawi and the Fields Medical Centre.
   3. The complete medical record of the Elizabeth Medical Centre.
   4. The complete medical record of the Klemzig Medical Centre.

[9] Nieuwenhuizen v Catholic Church Endowment Society Inc [2019] SAET 179 (Nieuwenhuizen) at [22] (Rossi DPJ) and the reference to the three steps referred to by Moffat P in National Employers' Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v Waind [1978] NSWLR 372.

[10] Some of the principles to be applied in an application for restricted inspection of medical records were addressed in Williams v BHP Group Ltd [2025] SAET 65.

[11] Nieuwenhuizen supra; Central Adelaide Local Health Network Inc v Whitehouse [2024] SASCA 22.

[12] See s 32(1a) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014.

[13] Ramsay v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 642 at [648]- [649]; Palmer Bruyn & Parker Pty Ltd v Parsons [2001] HCA 69; (2001) 208 CLR 388 at [433].

[14] See Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21 at [41] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kifel and Bell JJ, Cf at [66], (Heydon J)).