Capacity v Productivity - An application to proceed to trial in personal injury matters?

PETER WILLIAM AGNEW v C.E BARTLETT [2009] VCC 0110

 

I came across a matter from Australia, Victoria whilst doing capacity research and found it interesting to note that in terms of the Australian Accident Compensation Act a plaintiff shall not claim compensation for personal injury for pain and suffering and/or loss of earning capacity if the injury is not "very considerable" It further needs to be permanent and likely to persists in the foreseeable future and will last and not mend or repair or at least not to any significant extent. The plaintiff has to further establish a loss of earning capacity of more than 40% by comparing after injury earning with before scenario after suitable training (being hardening or retraining).

 

It is only once this has been established on an application procedure that the plaintiff is then allowed to proceed to trial to proof the quantum. It seems to be a very good way in which to reduce legal costs overall and to weed out claims early on that are not worth the disbursements that would be expended on it. It would certainly free up time in the courts.

 

What I found interesting though was the difference that is clearly present in that of a loss of productivity versus a loss of earning capacity which is often used interchangeably in our case law and day to day dealings with each other in negotiations. I have always maintained that their is a difference between not having the capacity to do the work and not being productive to do the work and feels that their should be such a distinction and that a lack of capacity should translate into compensation which could conveniently be correlated with a contingency deduction that should be in line with the amount of loss of capacity rather than looking at a pure economic loss in terms of hours in the day or increasing the general damages as per the much reviled Deysel case.

 

The Collins Thesaurus Dictionary definition of productivity is "output" but also productions, capacity, work rate, yield and efficiency whereas the definition for capacity is "ability" and also gift, genius, capability, aptitude, aptness, competence and competency. If one looks at it in terms of this meaning then my interpretation would be that productivity requires expending energy (of a physical nature) so to speak whereas capacity requires capability (both physical and psychological).

 

As such you would have a lack of productivity if it requires more energy to do it but a lack of capacity if you simply do not have the ability to do it. Practically this would mean that in the more common injuries, say a rotator cuff injury, that if a plaintiff is simply slower at doing something and has to expend more energy to do it but you can still perform the function, I would suggest a lack of productivity but if you are not capable of lifting your arm above your head 70 times a day you no longer have the capacity to do so and the question is then if you can retrain yourself to do so in future in terms of the Australian model.

 

This seems a more fair and reasonable way in determining a loss in personal injury matters  if one keeps in mind the "once and for all" rule as the long term consequences of not having the capacity to do something would certainly have an impact on one's life. It would be worthwhile arguing and may translate into a fairer way to estimate compensation than on pure pecuniary loss alone and would take the guess work out of matters (Bailey) if a particular percentage loss of capacity is determined.

 

The AMA guidelines may be a good starting point, if a plaintiff has a certain percentage of whole person impairment and this translates directly into a physical impediment in his field of work and as such his capacity to perform such work then this may be a useful tool. An 8% WPI on a arm injury may indicate a 8% loss of capacity to use that arm in future and as such and 8% loss of ability to perform the work translating into an 8% pecuniary loss but alas that would be too easy and would not take into consideration the view of many other experts on the matter. The WPI of a person is however a good starting point to determine capacity.

 

The distinction between capacity and productivity should be considered and duly dealt with by our practitioners and our courts to ensure fair and reasonable compensation for personal injury victims and it would be worthwhile to get experts to utilise the guidelines for a determination on all personal injury matters so as to give defendants a clear picture of the plaintiff's loss.