Almahmoody v Formtastic Group Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 136

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Almahmoody v Formtastic Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 136
APPLICANT:	Khaled Almahmoody
RESPONDENT:	Formtastic Group Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	9 April 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim pursuant to section 60 for proposed right shoulder surgery; injury recorded initially as right thumb injury; later recorded as right shoulder injury at date of accident as well; consideration of factual circumstances and pathology; Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd, and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates considered; Held – right shoulder injury and pathology resulted from injury in course of employment; award in favour of applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder, being a rotator cuff tear, in the course of his employment with the respondent on 16 August 2022, pursuant to s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The applicant’s employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to that injury. 2. The proposed right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (the surgery), recommended by A/Prof Haber, is reasonably necessary as a result of the injury on 16 August 2022. 3. The respondent is to pay, pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, for the cost of, and incidental to, the surgery. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 16 August 2022, the applicant, Mr Khaled Almahmoody, sustained injury to his right hand in the course of his employment with the respondent, Formtastic Group Pty Ltd.
The applicant underwent surgery on 18 August 2022 at the Auburn Hospital by Dr Atkinson. This was a surgical repair to the nail bed of the right little finger and k-wire fixation of the distal phalanx fracture.
The applicant claims proposed medical and treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for injury to his right shoulder, also said to be injured on 16 August 2022.
A/Prof Haber has recommended right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
The respondent disputes injury to the right shoulder.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
At the conciliation/arbitration hearing of this matter on 19 March 2025, the applicant was represented by Mr Schipp of counsel, instructed by Ms Pershad, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr Stockley of counsel, instructed by Ms Tippett, solicitor.
In the course of the arbitration hearing the respondent sought leave, and was granted, to dispute injury to the right shoulder on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Almahmoody v Formtastic Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 136
Decision Date: 9 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Almahmoody sought a determination from the Workers Compensation Magistrate under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, regarding proposed right shoulder surgery. The dispute involved whether the right shoulder injury, initially recorded as a right thumb injury, was indeed caused in the course of employment. Formtastic Group Pty Ltd contested the claim, asserting that the shoulder injury was not work-related. The matter was adjudicated by the Workers Compensation Magistrate, who was tasked with resolving the factual circumstances and pathology of the injuries in question.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the right shoulder injury was caused by the accident at work and whether it was related to the initial injury recorded as a right thumb injury. The court examined the medical evidence and the sequence of events leading up to the proposed surgery. It had to determine if the right shoulder injury was a result of the workplace accident and if the subsequent pathology was connected to the initial injury. The court's analysis involved considering relevant case law, including Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, which provided guidance on similar factual circumstances and causation in workers compensation claims.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously evaluated the medical evidence and the sequence of events. It found that the right shoulder injury and the associated pathology were indeed caused by the workplace accident. The court acknowledged the progression of injuries from the initial thumb injury to the subsequent shoulder injury, and it concluded that the pathology was a direct result of the accident. Consequently, the court awarded the claim in favour of the applicant, recognising the legitimacy of the proposed right shoulder surgery as a necessary consequence of the employment injury.

Orders