Bellew v RSL Lifecare Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 399

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Bellew v RSL Lifecare Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 399
APPLICANT:	Miriam Bellew
RESPONDENT:	RSL Lifecare Limited
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	12 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for compensation pursuant to section 60; injury due to nature and conditions of employment; worker employed in physical work over 22 years; whether employment was the main contributing factor to the injury; clinical notes revealed a quad bike accident resulting in a crush fracture to the spine; statement evidence revealed an acute onset of symptoms while dusting at home after employment had ceased; where neither incident was disclosed to the medicolegal experts or mentioned by the treating doctors; Held – AV v AW considered; while the nature and conditions of the worker’s employment may have contributed to the condition at her lumbar spine the worker failed to discharge her onus of establishing that employment was “the main” contributing factor to the injury; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Miriam Bellew (the applicant) was employed as a Care Service Employee by RSL Lifecare Limited (the respondent) between 2001 and 2023.
On 13 May 2024, the applicant submitted a claim for compensation in respect of an injury to her lumbar spine with referred pain into her hips and legs due to the nature and conditions of her employment.
Liability for the claimed injury was disputed by the respondent’s insurer in a dispute notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 28 May 2024.
That decision was maintained in further dispute notices dated 19 September 2024 and
27 November 2024.
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission on 17 April 2025.
The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for incurred medical and related treatment expenses including, the costs of a lumbar decompression at L4-5 and bilateral nerve root release surgery performed by Associate Professor Timothy Steel.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agreed that the following issues remained in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant sustained an injury to her lumbar spine due to the nature and conditions of her employment with the respondent pursuant to s 4(b) of the 1987 Act, and
(b) whether the incurred medical and related treatment expenses claimed, including the lumbar decompression at L4-5 and bilateral nerve root release surgery performed by Associate Professor Steel, were reasonably necessary as a result of the injury pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The parties appeared before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 22 July 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr John Gaitanis of counsel, instructed…

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 Bellew v RSL Lifecare 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 399
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bellew, the applicant, sought compensation from RSL Lifecare Ltd, the respondent, under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute centred on whether Bellew's employment was the primary cause of her injury, as required by the legislation. Bellew had been employed in physically demanding work for over 22 years and sustained a crush fracture to her spine, which she claimed was due to the nature and conditions of her employment. However, there were two incidents that might have caused the injury: a quad bike accident and an incident involving dusting at home after her employment had ended. Neither incident was disclosed to the medical experts or mentioned by the treating doctors.

The court was tasked with determining whether Bellew had successfully proven that her employment was the main contributing factor to her injury, as required by the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court considered the principles from the case of AV v AW, which emphasised the need to establish a causal link between the employment and the injury. The court concluded that while the nature and conditions of Bellew's employment may have contributed to her lumbar spine condition, she had not successfully demonstrated that her employment was the primary cause of the injury. Consequently, Bellew's claim for compensation was dismissed.

The court found that Bellew had not met the necessary burden of proof to establish that her employment was the main contributing factor to her injury. As a result, the court awarded costs to the respondent. This decision underscores the importance of clear and comprehensive evidence when making a claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, particularly in cases where multiple incidents could potentially be linked to the injury.

Orders