Blackmore v G&A Blackmore Pty Ltd

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

CITATION:

Blackmore v G&A Blackmore Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 190

APPLICANT:

Gary Keith Blackmore

RESPONDENT:

G&A Blackmore Pty Ltd

MEMBER:

Diana Benk

DATE OF DECISION:

16 April 2024

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 4(b)(ii); injury to the left hip disputed; costs of hip replacement surgery disputed; admissibility of documents; application of Way v Newcastle City Council, Gow v Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Limited, and Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Held – additional documents not admissible as factually and legally irrelevant to the current proceedings; the applicant suffered an aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of a  disease  process in the left hip within the meaning of section 4(b)(ii) arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent deemed to have occurred on 20 March 2023; the hip replacement surgery was/is reasonably necessary treatment as a result of the injury sustained by the applicant in the course of his employment with the respondent within the meaning of  section 60.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

1. The applicant suffered left hip injury within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 which was the aggravation of a disease in which his employment was the main contributing factor.  The deemed date of injury is 20 March 2023.

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical, hospital and related treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. On 20 March 2023, Gary Blackmore (the applicant) made a claim for medical expenses associated with a left hip replacement, maintaining the need for treatment arose from the aggravation, acceleration or exacerbation of deterioration of a disease due to the nature of his employment as a cement truck operator between 1980 to 8 July 2015 with G & A Blackmore Pty Ltd (the respondent).

2. On 5 April 2023, the respondent disputed liability with reference to the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act). The respondent disputed injury[1] and as a result considered that treatment expenses were not reasonably necessary.[2] Further, the respondent maintained the claim was not made within the prescribed time frame and there were no grounds that would permit an extension.[3] Proceedings were then filed in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission).

   [1] Section 4 of the 1987 Act.

   [2] Sections 59 and 60 of the 1987 Act.

   [3] Sections 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act.

3. The matter underwent the usual case management pathway. Following impasse at conciliation the matter proceeded to arbitration. The applicant was represented by Mr Robison of counsel instructed by Mr Staninovksi. The respondent was represented by Mr Doak of counsel instructed by Ms McCoy. The applicant and an insurer representative were also present.

4. Absent oral evidence, the evidence in this matter was limited to;

   (a)    Application to Resolve the Dispute (ARD) and attached documents;

   (b)    Reply…