Allan v L.J Livermore & T.F Ritchie - [2025] NSWPIC 96

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Allan v L.J Livermore & T.F Ritchie [2025] NSWPIC 96
APPLICANT:	Tracey Allan
RESPONDENT:	L.J Livermore & T.F Ritchie
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	19 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; medical expenses claim pursuant to section 60; applicant assaulted at work and suffered injury; left knee and lumbar spine injuries accepted; consequential right wrist injury later accepted; applicant seeks to have right hip, right knee, and right foot conditions accepted as consequential to accepted injuries; applicant contends altered gait and falls relevant to consequential causation; lower right side conditions disputed by respondent as consequential to workplace injury; nature of available supporting medical evidence; sufficiency for establishing causal chain; Held – available evidence does not reasonably establish lower right side conditions consequential to accepted workplace injuries; referral to Medical Assessor for assessment of whole person impairment on lumbar spine, left knee (with scarring from surgery), and right wrist; award for respondent on right hip, right knee, and right foot.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. It is undisputed the applicant suffered injury to her left knee, lumbar spine and right wrist in the course of, or arising from, her employment with the respondent on 2 July 2020. 2. Award for the respondent in relation to the applicant’s claim for consequential conditions of the right hip, right knee and right foot. 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the left lower extremity (knee), right upper extremity (wrist), spine (lumbar) and scarring (left knee) arising from injury on 2 July 2020. 4. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) the Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) the respondent’s Reply and attached documents; (c) the applicant’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed 22 January 2025; (d) the respondent’s Application to Lodge Additional Documents filed 22 January 2025, and (e) this Certificate of Determination with reasons. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Tracey Allan, was employed as a disability worker by the respondent, LJ Livermore & TF Ritchie. While at work on 2 July 2020 the applicant was assaulted by a disabled resident client of her employer. She received injuries following that incident. The respondent has since accepted liability for the applicant’s lumbar spine, left knee (with scarring from surgery) and right wrist (accepted later as consequential) conditions.
A claim for lump sum compensation was made by the applicant for those conditions as well as for injuries to her right knee, right hip and right foot that are said to have arisen because of the accepted injuries, in particular the left knee condition. The respondent disputes liability for these claimed consequential injuries.
An Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) related to the claim was filed by the applicant in the Personal Injury Commission…

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 Allan v L.J Livermore & T.F Ritchie

Details

AGLC: Allan v L.J Livermore & T.F Ritchie [2025] NSWPIC 96
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 96
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Allan v L.J Livermore & T.F Ritchie, the claimant, Mr. Allan, sought additional compensation for injuries to his right hip, right knee, and right foot, which he argued were consequential to injuries previously accepted by the defendant as arising from a workplace incident. These earlier accepted injuries included left knee and lumbar spine injuries, as well as a right wrist injury. The dispute centred on whether the claimant's subsequent conditions on the lower right side of his body were sufficiently connected to the accepted injuries to warrant compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court was tasked with determining the causal relationship between the earlier accepted injuries and the newly claimed conditions, and assessing the sufficiency of the evidence provided to establish this chain of causation.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether the claimant had established, on the balance of probabilities, that his right hip, right knee, and right foot conditions were consequential to the accepted injuries. The court examined the nature and quality of the medical evidence presented to support the claimant's assertions, particularly focusing on whether the evidence reasonably established a causal link between the injuries. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the claimant's altered gait and falls were relevant to the causation of the lower right side conditions. The court's analysis involved a detailed review of the medical reports and the arguments presented by both parties regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to meet the required standard of proof.

The court found that the available evidence did not reasonably establish that the claimant's right hip, right knee, and right foot conditions were consequential to the accepted workplace injuries. The claimant's argument that his altered gait and falls were relevant to the causation of the lower right side conditions was not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for these additional conditions. The court did, however, accept that the claimant's left knee and lumbar spine injuries, along with the right wrist injury, were consequential to the workplace incident. As a result, the court ordered a referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the whole person impairment for these accepted injuries. The court also made an award to the claimant on the basis of the accepted injuries.

The final orders included a referral to a Medical Assessor to assess whole person impairment for the lumbar spine, left knee (including scarring from surgery), and right wrist. The claimant was awarded compensation for these injuries, but the claim for the right hip, right knee, and right foot conditions was dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of robust medical evidence in establishing consequential causation in workers compensation claims.

Orders