VIC Workers’ Compensation: Judgment in favour of worker diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome – McGiffin v Fosterville Gold Mine [2022] VSC 665 

The Victorian Supreme Court recently considered a claim for damages made by a worker whom had been diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome, allegedly arising as a result of his employment. The judgment offers an insight into the process adopted by the Court when attempting to reconcile competing expert medical evidence.  


The Plaintiff, Patrick McGiffin, worked as a ‘nipper’ at the Fosterville Gold Mine, located near Bendigo. The Plaintiff had been working for the Defendant, Fosterville Gold Mine Pty Ltd, for a period of around three months prior to the subject incident. On 2 March 2018, the Plaintiff was struck on the head and right shoulder by a large rotating bolt that was attached to a boom on a machine being operated by a co-worker.  

 The Plaintiff undertook alternate duties until 29 May 2018, when he ceased work. The Plaintiff had not returned to work as at the date of trial.  

Parties’ Position at Trial


The Plaintiff contended that he had suffered, and continued to suffer, from a condition known as complex regional pain syndrome, a syndrome characterised by ongoing regional pain that is seemingly disproportionate, in either duration or severity, to the usual cause of the trauma. He further contended that he suffered from a psychological condition referrable to the subject incident.  

In support of his allegation that he suffered complex regional pain syndrome as a result of the subject incident, the Plaintiff relied upon the evidence of Dr Peter Blombery, a practitioner with over thirty years’ experience treating the syndrome. Dr Blombery opined that whilst the Plaintiff exhibited some ‘exaggerated pain behaviour’, his was a ‘genuine case’.  


The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff had not proved, to the requisite standard, that he suffered from complex regional pain syndrome, nor a recognisable mental illness. The Defendant further contended that a finding of contributory negligence was open to the Court.  

The Defendant relied upon the evidence of Dr Joseph Slesenger and Dr David Vivian in disputing the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome. Dr Vivian was particularly critical of the Plaintiff’s presentation, opining that he had not seen “so obvious a non-organic presentation in his 40 years of medical practice.” 

With respect to its allegation that the Plaintiff had contributed to the circumstances of the subject accident, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had moved into a clear position of danger relative to the machine without first obtaining permission from the operator of that machine.  

Court’s Consideration of Expert Medical Evidence

With respect to the competition between the expert medical evidence, Moore J was unconvinced by the evidence provided by the experts called by the Defendant in respect of the Plaintiff’s alleged complex regional pain syndrome. Of note, in the Court’s view, was the lack of reliance by Dr Vivian upon specific criteria, known as the Budapest criteria, in assessing the Plaintiff’s condition. Moore J opined that Dr Vivian’s evidence was undermined by his scepticism and criticism of the appropriateness of the Budapest criteria as a diagnostic tool for complex regional, with it being “uncontroversial” that the criteria “is and has been used by pain physicians internationally to diagnose CRPS type 1 for at least 15 years”. Further, Moore J opined that Dr Vivian’s opinion had been coloured by his view that the Plaintiff was consciously simulating his condition. 

In contrast, Moore J found the Plaintiff to be a credible witness insofar as his reporting of his symptomology and was ‘impressed’ by the evidence provided by Dr Blombery and Dr Gassin, who both opined that the Plaintiff was suffering from complex regional pain syndrome.  

Thus, the Moore J concluded that the Plaintiff suffered from complex regional pain syndrome.  

Court’s Consideration of Liability Submissions

Moore J concluded that the system of work that the Plaintiff was engaging in at the time of the subject incident was “inherently flawed and unsafe”. As the Plaintiff was “doing no more or less than what the system required”, there was no room for a finding of contributory negligence.  

Judgment and Quantification of Damages

The Court found in favour of the Plaintiff. An award of damages for pain and suffering was made in the sum of $450,000.00, for past economic loss in the sum of $295,072.00, and a sum of $1,207,546.00 for future economic loss.  

Like? Share it with your friends.

Contact the Author


More Articles

TAC索赔知识库: 在维多利亚(VIC)发生车祸该怎么办?

每个人都希望安安全全出车去,平平安安回家来。但,事故往往在意想不到的一瞬间发生,能造成的伤害却可能需要一辈子来承受。若在澳洲发生车祸,您更可能会因为家人不在身边陪伴、语言不通、不熟悉澳洲法律体系而造成更大的心理压力。如果您或家人、朋友在维多利亚发生车祸,立德事务所(Littles Lawyers)能免费为您提供初询服务,协助您了解理赔的程序,简化您的理赔过程,让您可免于承受繁琐的索赔体系带来的无形压力,专注在车祸后的康复以及休息养伤。  每个州属的法律、保险体系不一样,若您在新南威尔士(NSW)发生车祸,请浏览此页阅读相关信息。  发生车祸以后要采取什么行动呢? 1.      向警方报案: 您报案的时候要记录警官的联络信息以及案件编号(police reference number)。这些信息在您向交通事故委员会(Transport Accident Commission, 简称TAC)进行索赔申请的时候需要提供。  2.      看诊:意外发生后,您应尽快看诊,获得医生开出的“工作能力评估假条/病假纸”(Certificate of Capacity, 简称COC)。若您因车祸而无法工作,您更应尽快看诊。  3.      向TAC递交申请:您可以在TAC官网递交申请表(请搜TAC Online Claim Lodgement Form)或拨电至...

Read More