Aram v Unisson Disability Support - [2025] NSWPIC 455

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Aram v Unisson Disability Support [2025] NSWPIC 455
APPLICANT:	Ellie Aram
RESPONDENT:	Unisson Disability Support
MEMBER:	Diana Benk
DATE OF DECISION:	3 September 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for injury and surgical treatment to the neck said to arise out of injury simpliciter on 26 April 2023; respondent disputed the applicant sustained injury and maintained applicant not credible given subsequent multiple versions of injury all inconsistent with hospital presentation immediately after accident; consideration of Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Onassis v Vergottis, and Watson v Foxman; inconsistencies in evidence both factual and medical; Held – applicant failed to discharge onus; award respondent in respect of the claim of injury to the neck and claim for surgery.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent in respect of the claim of injury to the cervical spine (neck). A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ellie Aram (the applicant) claims on 26 April 2023, she fell at work, struck her head, lost consciousness, injured her neck and now requires surgery.[1] Unisson Disability Support (the respondent) and its insurer denied it was liable for any injury to the neck.
[1] Right C5/6 and C6/7 foraminotomy and ancillary expenses as recommended by A/Prof Ali Ghahreman in his fees estimate of 29 April 2025.
An Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was filed in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). Injury was pleaded as (unedited):
“The applicant sustained a frank injury to her right foot/ankle, lower back and neck at work on 26 April 2023. Further, or in the alternative, the neck and the lower back are consequential. Further or in the alternative, aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or a deterioration of a disease condition in the spine is alleged. The applicant has sustained consequential condition to her right hip.”
The matter underwent the usual case management pathway ultimately proceeding to Arbitration. Mr Tanner of counsel instructed by Mr Covic represented the applicant.
Mr Barnes instructed by Ms Bentley represented the respondent. Ms Allen and Ms Visser were the insurer representatives. At arbitration the claim relating to a “consequential neck condition” was abandoned with the submissions being confined to injury simpliciter. Attempts to conciliate the matter were unsuccessful.
Parties agreed the issue in dispute is whether the applicant suffered injury to the neck as defined by the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) on 26 April 2023 and if so, whether the surgery proposed is reasonably necessary.
No oral evidence was called. The documents considered in decision making included the ARD and its annexures, the Reply and its annexures and Applications to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the applicant on 12 June 2025 and 15 July 2025.

Evidence

In her statement dated 9 September 2024[2] the applicant records she slipped on a ramp covered with moss…

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 Aram v Unisson Disability Support

Details

AGLC: Aram v Unisson Disability Support [2025] NSWPIC 455
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 455
Decision Date: 3 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Aram v Unisson Disability Support, the applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained to their neck and for surgical treatment related to that injury. The claim arose from an incident that occurred on 26 April 2023. The respondent disputed the applicant's claim, asserting that the applicant did not sustain the alleged injury and that the applicant's credibility was undermined due to inconsistencies between the various versions of the injury provided and the immediate hospital presentation post-accident. The case hinged on whether the applicant could substantiate their claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court was required to decide if the applicant had discharged the onus of proving that the injury occurred in the manner and time alleged and that it arose out of their employment. The court considered several precedents, including Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Onassis v Vergottis, and Watson v Foxman. The key issue revolved around the credibility of the applicant's evidence, both factual and medical, and whether these inconsistencies precluded the applicant from establishing their claim.

The court concluded that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proof. The inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the applicant, including those between the accounts given at different times and the medical records, were deemed significant. The court found that these inconsistencies undermined the applicant's credibility and, as such, the applicant failed to establish their claim. The court thus awarded the respondent in respect of the claims for injury to the neck and for surgical treatment. The decision was grounded in the applicant's inability to provide a consistent and credible account of the events and their aftermath.

Orders