Ait Aiss v Vistamaze Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 478

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Ait Aiss v Vistamaze Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 478
APPLICANT:	Ismail Ait Aiss
RESPONDENT:	Vistamaze Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	15 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 60; reasonably necessary; as a result of an injury; Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Bartolo v Western Sydney Area Health Service, Diab v NRMA Limited, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd considered and applied; Held – hydrotherapy is not reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted work injury sustained; physiotherapy is reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted work injury sustained; award for the respondent in respect to the claim pursuant to section 60 for the costs of hydrotherapy; the respondent is to pay the reasonably necessary costs of physiotherapy treatment pursuant to section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. That hydrotherapy is not reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted work injury sustained on 13 April 2023. 2. That physiotherapy is reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted work injury sustained on 13 April 2023. 3. Award for the respondent in respect to the claim pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for the costs of hydrotherapy. 4. The respondent is to pay the reasonably necessary costs of physiotherapy treatment pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ismail Ait Aiss (applicant) has brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he pleads that he sustained injury on 13 April 2023 to his back and both shoulders as well as a secondary psychological injury whilst in the course of his employment with Vistamaze Pty Ltd (respondent) when he was required to lift and move multiple wooden boards weighing approximately 70kg.
The respondent does not dispute that the applicant sustained injury.
The relief sought by the applicant is a general order pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) for the payment by the respondent of reasonably necessary physiotherapy and/or hydrotherapy costs.
It is the applicant’s evidence that on 13 April 2023 he was required with a co-worker to lift and move about 50 heavy wooden boards which weight approximately 70kgs each from one stack to another on the floor. That after they had moved about 20 or 30 of these boards, they were lifting and shifting one of the boards when he felt sharp pain in his lower back and all the way up to his shoulders. The applicant was unable to keep working and he notified the respondent of the injury and went to his doctor.
It is the applicant’s evidence that he regularly has back pain which worsens with activity and which sometimes shoots up his back and into his shoulders. It is the applicant’s evidence that he also has pain in his shoulders…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ait Aiss v Vistamaze Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ait Aiss v Vistamaze Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 478
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 478
Decision Date: 15 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ait Aiss v Vistamaze Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the provision of certain medical treatments as compensation for a work-related injury. The matter was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining the nature and extent of the compensation due under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The legal issues central to the case centred on whether the treatments in question, specifically hydrotherapy and physiotherapy, were reasonably necessary as a result of the injury claimed. The court was required to interpret and apply relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, particularly section 60, and consider precedent cases such as Rose v Health Commission (NSW), Bartolo v Western Sydney Area Health Service, Diab v NRMA Limited, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd.

The court thoroughly examined the medical evidence and legal principles surrounding the necessity of the treatments in question. It concluded that while physiotherapy was reasonably necessary as a result of the accepted work injury, hydrotherapy did not meet the criteria of being reasonably necessary. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory interpretation of the Act and the relevant case law, which emphasised the need for treatments to be directly linked to the injury and its consequences. Consequently, the court ruled that the respondent was entitled to reimbursement for the costs of hydrotherapy, while the costs of physiotherapy were to be borne by the respondent.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that Vistamaze Pty Ltd was to pay the costs associated with the hydrotherapy treatment as per the provisions of section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Conversely, the respondent was to cover the costs of the reasonably necessary physiotherapy treatment. This decision balanced the statutory requirements with the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that compensation was awarded in a manner consistent with both the law and the medical needs arising from the injury.

Orders