Woodlands v SAS Trustee Corporation - [2001] NSWIRComm 232 - NSWIRComm 1991 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWIRComm

Woodlands v SAS Trustee Corporation

[2001] NSWIRComm 232

Industrial Relations Commission (NSW)|1991-12-05|Before: Hungerford J, Cullen J, Peterson J, Mr Mark J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Industrial Relations Commission (NSW)

Decision date

1991-12-05

Before

Hungerford J, Cullen J, Peterson J, Mr Mark J

Catchwords

06/05/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/28/2001

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

06/05/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/28/2001

Judgment (194 paragraphs)

[1]

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session

[2]

CITATION : Woodlands v SAS Trustee Corporation [2001] NSWIRComm 232 APPELLANT John Edward Woodlands PARTIES : RESPONDENT SAS Trustee Corporation FILE NUMBER: IRC 1613 of 2000 CORAM: Hungerford J CATCHWORDS : Police - Superannuation appeal - Discharge from police force on medical grounds - Multiple infirmities - Incapable of discharging the duties of office - Infirmity of partial incapacity - Whether partial incapacity causally related to incapability to discharge duties - Whether fitness for employment affected by partial incapacity - Otherwise total incapacity from separate infirmities - Nature and extent of infirmity. Superannuation - Police Service - Appeal against refusal to certify a specified infirmity of body as making a police officer incapable of discharging the duties of office - Discharge from police force on medical grounds - Multiple infirmities - Infirmity of partial incapacity - Whether partial incapacity causally related to incapability to discharge duties - Whether fitness for employment affected by partial incapacity - Otherwise total incapacity from separate infirmities - Separate infirmities included in certificate of relevant incapacity - Whether partial infirmity should be added to certificate for superannuation purposes - Appeal allowed. Interpretation Act 1987 s 8(b) LEGISLATION CITED : Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 s 7 s 8 s 10 s 10B s 12D s 14 s 21 Superannuation Administration Act 1996 s 88 Adams v State Authorities Superannuation Board (unreported, Cullen J, 90/551, 5 December 1991) CASES CITED : Boland v SAS Trustee Corporation (1999) 97 IR 127 Daykin v SAS Trustee Corporation [2000] NSWIRComm 7 Wooden v State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation (unreported, Peterson J, IRC97/829, 28 July 1998) HEARING DATES: 06/04/2001; 06/05/2001 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/28/2001

[10]

4 The appellant gave evidence and traced his history of employment in the police force with particular reference to the problems experienced with his feet. That evidence may be conveniently summarised in the following way - (1) Then 17 years of age, the appellant joined the police force as a cadet on 28 October 1963 and became a sworn constable of police on 10 May 1965 when he was posted to Paddington Police Station to perform general duties in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. (2) The police uniform boots at the time were of plain hard leather uppers and soles with little support for the foot and which the appellant described as "just like walking on a hard vinyl floor"; he added that "the cold from the street would come straight up through the sole of the boot and in your feet and in the summer when it was hot you would get the other effect and the heat transfer through". (3) Within a short period of commencing general duties, which the appellant said involved "extensive foot patrols ... also guard duties ... and I was on my feet a lot with the boots", he "noticed after a couple of months ... I was getting sore feet from walking around and standing and that pain would be right across the bottom of the feet and would spread up towards the ankle". (4) From August 1966 to August 1968 the appellant served in the Australian army undertaking his national service commitment. He noticed no ill effects from wearing army boots which, as he said, "... had a much better innersole. ... some give in it, had some shape in it to support the boot. ... generally fitted better ... a lot more support for the ankle. ... a bigger boot, taller boot, much more support for the ankle". (5) On returning to police duties, the applicant was then transferred to Byron Bay Police Station where, being a country location, he was not on his feet for as long but, as he said, his "feet were getting sore again ... pain was spreading right across the bottom of the feet and up the ankles". During this period when not on duty wearing ordinary footwear, including when jogging, the appellant did not experience problems with his feet until he wore the police boots. (6) The style of police boots issued changed about this time to a synthetic sole and then an elastic-sided boot was issued. (7) In 1977, the appellant was posted to Kogarah Police Station and in 1984 to Broken Hill when he was promoted to the rank of sergeant. (8) At Broken Hill, as a sergeant, he was the supervisor of a three-man crew and although he spent time at the station he was on his feet for most of the shift. He said his feet were "very sore at the end of the day shift ... same pain I was getting before, it would spread right across the bottom of my feet and then spread up to the ankles". (9) In 1987, the appellant was transferred to Ballina Police Station on supervisory work and general duties; he was required to be "on my feet a lot". (10) Although the appellant did not earlier seek assistance regarding the problems with his feet, in 1991 he attended a podiatrist in Ballina because, as he said, "the pain was getting quite severe then"; the podiatrist advised better quality inserts be fitted to his police boots and that relieved the problem for a couple of years. However, on its recurrence, he consulted another podiatrist, Mr C M Coleman, on 9 June 1994 who prescribed different inserts which "helped the pain again for another couple of years and then it became intense again".

[26]

(25) The appellant thereupon requested the respondent to add as an infirmity to the certificate of incapacity so issued the condition of "feet injuries". On 14 October 1999, the respondent advised that on 8 October 1999 its Disputes Committee considered his request and had determined to confirm the decision of its delegate to exclude the condition of "feet injuries" from the appellant's certificate of incapacity. It is against that decision the present appeal is brought. (26) For completeness, on 2 July 1999 the delegate for the Commissioner of Police, in accordance with the function contained in s 10B(3)(a) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act , decided that the infirmity of "thoraco-lumbar spinal degenerative condition" as specified in the respondent's certificate of 30 June 1999 was caused by the appellant being hurt on duty on seven specified occasions from 13 March 1975 to 11 July 1996. However, the delegate further decided that the specified infirmities of "specific phobia for police work" and "exertionally induced vasodepressor episodes" were not duty related. (27) On 25 May 2001, the respondent advised the appellant's solicitor that on 11 May 2001 it had amended the certificate to its present form by substituting for "specific phobia for police work" the infirmity of "generalised anxiety disorder"; otherwise, the certificate remained unchanged. The respondent notified the Commissioner of Police accordingly. (28) The appellant has filed an appeal in the Compensation Court pursuant to s 21(1) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act against the Commissioner's decision not accepting the two stated infirmities of "specific phobia for police work" and "exertionally induced vasodepressor episodes" as being duty related. Any further proceedings concerning the appellant's "feet injuries", as to whether duty related or not, are dependent upon the decision in the present appeal as to whether such injuries should be certified as relevantly specified infirmities under ss 8(1) and 10B(1) of the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act and, if so, any decision of the Commissioner thereon concerning the causal relationship.

[182]

43 Within a short period of commencing general duties in Sydney as a constable in May 1965 after completing his cadetship, the appellant, then about 19 years of age, experienced sore feet while wearing the standard issue police footwear; his evidence was that he was on his feet a great deal in carrying out extensive foot patrols and guard duties. However, during a two year period ending in August 1968 in the army he noticed no ill effects from wearing boots because of their design which gave more support for his ankle and generally fitted better than the police boots. On returning to police duties, at a country location in Byron Bay, the appellant again experienced sore feet from wearing the police footwear and the pain spread across the bottom of his feet and up the ankles. When not on duty, however, the appellant had no problems with his feet even when jogging. The situation continued in much that way over the years as the appellant was required, and notwithstanding his promotion to sergeant on supervisory work, as he said, to be "on my feet a lot". Following his transfer to Ballina in 1987, again on supervisory work and general duties, the appellant consulted a podiatrist because the pain in his feet was getting "quite severe"; on advice, the appellant fitted inserts into his police boots which relieved the problem for a couple of years. On the recurrence of the pain, the appellant consulted another podiatrist who prescribed different inserts and again the pain abated for a couple of years until it became "intense". The appellant visited that podiatrist, Mr Coleman, on a few occasions to receive treatment for his feet but the pain persisted. The situation with the problems to his feet came to a head during 1995 after he was posted to Byron Bay as a supervisory shift sergeant when he described the condition of his feet as "terrible", "the pain was quite intense" and "it would get worse as the day went on". During the performance of his duties, the appellant said he had to remove his boots and sit down with his feet up to relieve the pain, although during off-duty periods when he wore good footwear with padding he did not experience the same difficulties; he was able to continue jogging. The problems only presented while he was wearing the uniform police boots. Up to this time, the appellant did not have any absences from work because of the condition to his feet, other than for a day or so when he suffered a blister on one of his heels.

Woodlands v SAS Trustee Corporation

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (194 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (5)