Anderson v Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 359

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Anderson v Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 359
APPLICANT:	Shawna Anderson
RESPONDENT:	Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Limited
MEMBER:	John Wynyard
DATE OF DECISION:	29 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Lump sum claim for injury to the left shoulder, complex regional pain syndrome (CPRS), and cervical spine arising from collision with dollies in warehouse; shoulder injury accepted; CRPS agreed to be referred to Medical Assessor with shoulder injury; cervical injury denied; whether inference available from complaints and subsequent negative investigations (MRI and nerve conduction) that soft tissue injury occurred; whether pathological change established; Held – content of clinical notes demonstrated no complaints of injury to the neck rather of muscular pain and emotional lability; GP confirmed that claimant exaggerating, Mason v Demasi, and Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited considered; statements of the claimant inconsistent as to mechanism of injury; reports by claimant’s expert inconsistent and contradictory; respondent expert preferred; no evidence of pathological change; Castro v State Transit Authority, Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness, EMI Ltd v Bes, and Fernandez v Tubemakers of Australia considered; award for respondent for cervical spine claim.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the respondent with respect to the claim for injury to the cervical spine. 2. Leave is granted to the applicant to lodge further documentation from Dr Mir. 3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for a whole person impairment assessment on the following bases: Date of injury: 17 December 2020 Matters for assessment: Left upper extremity (shoulder, including CRPS, if any) Evidence: Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; Application to admit late documents (ALD) registered 30 April 2025; Reply and attached documents; ALD registered 11 April 2025; ALD registered 3 June 2025, and documents the subject of the above granted leave from Dr Mir. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Shauna Anderson, the applicant, brings an action against Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Limited, the respondent, seeking payment of lump sum compensation for injuries alleged to have been sustained on 17 December 2020 to Ms Anderson's left upper extremity (shoulder), cervical spine and the development of chronic pain. The parties have agreed that the chronic pain aspect should be referred as part of the shoulder, as the dispute concerns whether Ms Anderson suffers from CRPS, which is a matter for the Medical Assessor.
Dispute notices were issued by the insurer, and the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was duly lodged.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) did Ms Anderson injure her cervical spine?

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

This matter was heard in the Commission on 18 June 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr Luke Morgan, instructed by Mr Wali Mohammad. The respondent was represented by Mr Justin Hart Instructed by…

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 Anderson v Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia 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 359
Decision Date: 29 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Anderson v Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Ltd was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Anderson, sought a lump sum compensation for injuries to the left shoulder, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and cervical spine sustained during an incident in a warehouse where he collided with dollies. The defendant, Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Ltd, accepted that Anderson suffered a shoulder injury but disputed the CRPS and cervical spine claims.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether there was sufficient evidence to infer that a soft tissue injury to the cervical spine occurred and whether any such injury resulted in pathological changes. The court considered the claimant's complaints, medical investigations, and expert reports. The plaintiff argued that the negative results from the MRI and nerve conduction studies should not negate the presence of a soft tissue injury. The defendant countered that the absence of pathological evidence and the claimant's inconsistent statements undermined the claim for cervical spine injury.

The court found that the clinical notes and the general practitioner's confirmation indicated no specific complaints of neck injury, only muscular pain and emotional lability. The claimant's statements regarding the mechanism of the injury were inconsistent, and his expert reports were contradictory, whereas the respondent's expert was deemed more credible. The court also found that there was no evidence of pathological changes consistent with a cervical spine injury. The decision referenced several precedents, including Mason v Demasi and Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited, which underscored the importance of consistent and credible evidence in workers compensation claims. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for cervical spine injury and awarded costs to the respondent.

The court ordered that the respondent, Grocery Delivery E-Services Australia Pty Ltd, was not liable for compensation concerning the cervical spine injury. The shoulder injury and CRPS claims were accepted, and appropriate compensation was awarded for these injuries.

Orders