In a recent ruling in a case before the High Court of Uganda, Hon. Justice Boniface Wamala in Stanbic Bank (U)Ltd v Odoro Susan Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2018 substantiated matters regarding the workers compensation specifically on challenging an assessment of disability, and enforcing a claim to compensation.
What is the background?
Susan(respondent) had been an employee of Stanbic Bank(appellant)for an uninterrupted period of 31 years until 2014 when she applied for and was granted early retirement based on a medical condition she believed to have been sustained from work. She filed a complaint to a labour officer who referred her to a general medical doctor who assessed her permanent incapacity at 40%. Stanbic Bank challenged the findings and the matter was referred to the Medical Arbitration Board which also made an assessment of permanent incapacity on the Respondent at the rate of 40%. The labour officer made a statutory calculation of the compensation which was served upon the Appellant who didn’t respond within the prescribed period.
Susan filed an application for enforcement of a claim arising out of an assessment and computation made by the Labour officer under the Workers Compensation before the Magistrate Court which found for her (Susan). Stanbic Bank decided to appeal the decision.
What issues were before the court for determination?
The issues for determination were whether the Trial Magistrate erred in holding that;
- The Chief Magistrates Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment of disability.
- In determining causal link, the applicant was not required to produce affirmative medical evidence establishing that the working condition caused the alleged harm.
- The Respondent had not produced legally sufficient evidence to support the contention that the Applicant’s condition was not work related.
What were the determinations of the court?
The court held that;
- Sect. 14(1) of the Workers Compensation Act under which the Respondent’s application was premised is for the purpose of “enforcing a claim to compensation” by the injured worker. Therefore, within the strict premises of the application that was before the trial court, the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment of disability; her role was that of enforcing the assessment and computation. If any party was aggrieved with the assessment, they were expected to have already made use of the provision under Sect. 13(3) to challenge the assessment.
- As long as the worker established that an accident or injury occurred to them in the course of employment, and the contrary was not proved, such accident or injury was presumed to arise out of employment. It follows, therefore that after triggering the legal presumption in motion, the worker had no more burden to lead evidence to establish as a fact that the working conditions caused the alleged harm. It remained the duty of the employer to lead evidence proving the fact that working conditions had no causal link with the alleged injury; and thus rebutting the presumption. Where the employer successfully rebuts the presumption, in absence of any further evidence by the worker, the application by the worker would be unsuccessful. On the other hand, where the employer fails to rebut the presumption, the worker needs to do no more in that regard.
- The Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that there was a causal link between the Respondent’s injury and her workplace. The conclusions by Appellant’s expert witness were more of a technical evaluation of the available medical reports than an exposition of substantive reality of the Respondent’s condition. If the court were to choose between the expert reports produced by the Respondents on the one hand, and the one produced by the Appellant on the other hand, the former reports were more sync with the reality that the merely technical and possibly assumptive latter report.
- The Respondent was examined by medical specialists who took her medical history, including the nature of work she was doing and how long, the failure to visit her workplace had no substantial effect on their findings. Given the nature of the alleged injury and the nature of work, there was nothing the medical specialists could see on the ground that could not be stablished through description.
What are the key highlights from this decision?
The key highlights to note include the following;
- Once the medical arbitration board makes its decision, any party including the employer has a right to go to court challenging that decision.
- When an employer is served with the computation made by the Labour officer in accordance with the decision of the medical arbitration board, the employer is supposed to compensate the worker.
- Where the employer fails, refuses or delays to make payment as per the compensation, the worker may make an application to court to enforce compensation.
- The decision of the worker bringing an application for enforcement of a claim doesn’t stop the employer from bringing an action challenging the decision of the medical arbitration board to challenge the assessment of disability.
- Where the employer is aggrieved by the decision of the medical arbitration board but fails to bring an action challenging that decision and the worker files an application for enforcement of a claim, the employer cannot seek the court hearing the application for enforcement to interfere with the assessment of disability.
- When examining an injured worker, the medical specialists do not have to specifically visit the worker’s workplace if they are well aware of her nature of work, medical history, among others.
Conclusion
This case highlights the law on compensation of injured workers and specifically the mode of challenging decisions arising from a claim made by the injured worker and suits for enforcement of claims to compensation. It's important that HR managers and top management take note of such procedures and also seek guidance from their legal teams at every stage on the available options.
Author
DISCLAIMER: This article is for general information only and reflect the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice. For any further information or advice relating to this article, please contact us.
Discover More News and Insights
Stay informed and deepen your understanding of important legal topics. Explore our extensive library of articles covering various aspects of law, business, finance and more.
Read More Articles