| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Bideratan v Malek Group Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 5 |
| APPLICANT: | Belgin Bideratan |
| RESPONDENT: | Malek Group Pty Ltd |
| MEMBER: | Cameron Burge |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 8 January 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Permanent impairment compensation; alleged injury by way of aggravation to lumbar spine and consequential condition to gastrointestinal (GI) system by virtue of long-term prescription of pain killing and anti-inflammatory medication; Held – the applicant suffered injury by way of aggravation to her pre-existing lumbar pathology; the absence of reporting of the work-related incident was explained by the applicant in her statement evidence; although the pathology in the applicant’s spine was pre-existing, the evidence discloses contemporaneous and persistent deterioration in her symptoms since the workplace incidents at issue; that worsening of symptomology, against a background of the applicant having worked for many years after the prior MVA which gave rise to her lumbar pathology, is sufficient to ground a finding of injury to the lumbar spine; the applicant has not discharged the onus of proof in relation to the alleged gastrointestinal condition; there is no evidence as to the dosage and length of time for which the applicant has been prescribed the medication which she alleges caused her condition; although her IME Dr Berry attributes her condition to that medication, the tests undertaken by the applicant’s treating specialist reveal the presence of pathology which is, contrary to Dr Berry’s assertion, at least suggestive of matters other than the prescription of medication as being the cause of the applicant’s GI issues; claim for lumbar spine impairment remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor; award for the respondent on the claim for GI injury/consequential condition. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The findings and reasons are as follows: 1. The applicant suffered an injury to her lumbar spine in the course of her employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 8 March 2019. 2. Award for the respondent on the claim for injury/consequential condition to the gastrointestinal tract. 3. The claim for permanent impairment compensation to the lumbar spine is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the degree of permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of injury: 8 March 2019 (deemed) Body system referred: lumbar spine Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 4. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor to assist with their determination are to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments, and (c) Reply and attachments. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Belgin Bigeratan, was employed as a childcare worker with Malek Group Pty Ltd (the respondent). She commenced employment in that capacity in or around 2000 for an entity known as Raelene Corp Pty Ltd, which business name was later changed in 2015 or 2016 to that of the respondent.
The applicant alleges that on 8 March 2019, she was leaning over a cot in the childcare nursery…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bideratan v Malek 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] NSWPIC 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the applicant had suffered an injury to her lumbar spine by way of aggravation due to the workplace incidents, and if so, whether the gastrointestinal condition was a result of the prescribed medication. The applicant argued that her lumbar spine condition had worsened due to the work-related incidents, despite the pre-existing nature of her pathology. She also contended that her gastrointestinal condition was a direct result of the medication prescribed for her lumbar spine pain.
The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered an injury to her lumbar spine by way of aggravation, despite the pre-existing pathology. The tribunal accepted the applicant's explanation for not reporting the work-related incidents and noted the contemporaneous and persistent deterioration in her symptoms since those incidents. The court held that the worsening of symptomology, given the applicant's history of working after a prior motor vehicle accident, was sufficient to ground a finding of injury to the lumbar spine. However, the court found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proof in relation to the alleged gastrointestinal condition. There was insufficient evidence regarding the dosage and length of time for which the applicant had been prescribed the medication, and the tests conducted by her treating specialist suggested other possible causes for her GI issues.
The court remitted the claim for lumbar spine impairment to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor. The award for the respondent was upheld on the claim for the gastrointestinal injury/consequential condition.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.