Angelkoski v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 193

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Angelkoski v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 193
APPLICANT:	Kris Angelkoski
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	7 May 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for further section 66 lump sum compensation in respect of accepted lumbar injury in 2010; complying agreement for 7% whole person impairment (WPI) in 2012; whether lumbar surgeries performed in 2015 and 2022 were reasonably necessary “as a result of” the accepted work injury; where evidence of sudden onset of new symptoms and changes in pathology caused by later events recorded in the evidence; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd considered and applied; Held – applicant did not discharge his onus of demonstrating that the accepted work injury “materially contributed” to the need for the surgeries; matter remitted for further assessment of the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the accepted injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the L5/S1 discectomy and left S1 decompression surgery performed by Dr Saeed Kohan in 2015 was reasonably necessary as a result of the workplace injury. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the L5/S1 anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion surgery performed by Dr Saeed Kohan in 2022 was reasonably necessary as a result of the workplace injury. The Commission orders: 1. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for further assessment as follows: Date of injury: 23 March 2010 (deemed) Body parts: Lumbar spine Method: Whole Person Impairment. 2. The materials to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include the Application to Resolve a Dispute and all attachments; the Reply and all attachments; documents attached to Applications to Lodge Additional Documents lodged by the applicant on 21 March 2025, the respondent on 21 March 2025 and the applicant on 27 March 2025; together with this Certificate of Determination and accompanying Statement of Reasons. 3. The matter to be listed for further preliminary conference upon receipt of the Medical Assessment Certificate. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Kris Angelkoski (the applicant) was employed by Woolworths Group Limited (the respondent) as a butcher.
There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant sustained a compensable workplace injury to his lumbar spine in early 2010 in the course of his employment with the respondent.
The applicant received lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in accordance with a complying agreement dated
18 June 2012 in respect of 7% whole person impairment (WPI) of the lumbar spine. The agreement was based upon reports prepared by Dr James Bodel on 15 July 2011 and
27 March 2012.
The applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated on 20 December 2012.
On 19 September 2023, the applicant made a claim for further lump sum…

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 Angelkoski v Woolworths Group 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 193
Decision Date: 7 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Angelkoski v Woolworths Group Ltd, the applicant sought to claim further section 66 lump sum compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for an accepted lumbar injury sustained in 2010. The injury had resulted in a complying agreement for 7% whole person impairment (WPI) in 2012. The primary issue before the court was whether the lumbar surgeries performed in 2015 and 2022 were reasonably necessary "as a result of" the accepted work injury. This involved examining the evidence for sudden onset of new symptoms and changes in pathology that were attributed to later events, as well as determining whether these surgeries were a consequence of the original injury.

The court considered the relevant legal principles established in previous cases such as Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Murphy v Allity Management Services Pty Ltd. These cases established the criteria for determining whether a subsequent medical condition or treatment was reasonably necessary as a result of the original injury. The applicant had the onus to demonstrate that the accepted work injury materially contributed to the need for the surgeries. The court scrutinised the evidence presented, including medical reports and expert opinions, to assess whether the applicant had met this burden of proof.

The court found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the accepted work injury materially contributed to the need for the surgeries in question. The evidence did not sufficiently establish a causal link between the original injury and the subsequent surgeries. As such, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to the additional compensation sought. The matter was remitted for further assessment of the degree of permanent impairment resulting from the accepted injury, in light of the evidence presented.

Orders