Bridge Inn Nominees Pty Ltd v Carr

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Bridge Inn Nominees Pty Ltd v Carr [2015] NSWWCCPD 64
APPELLANT: Bridge Inn Nominees Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Marilyn Carr
INSURER: QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-2126/15
ARBITRATOR: Mr W Dalley
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 11 August 2015
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 16 November 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Adequacy of reasons; application of Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430; finding of consequential condition in the right shoulder from the use of crutches and overuse associated with an accepted injury to the left hip; assessment of expert evidence;
application of principles in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; 10 NSWCCR 796
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: President Judge Keating
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Curwoods Lawyers
Respondent: Slater + Gordon Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.       The Arbitrator’s determination of 11 August 2015 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. This appeal challenges an Arbitrator’s finding that the worker suffered a consequential condition in her right shoulder as a result of the use of crutches and using the right shoulder to support herself in various activities of daily living, following an accepted injury to her left hip. For the reasons explained below, the appeal is unsuccessful and the Arbitrator’s determination is confirmed.

BACKGROUND

  1. Mrs Marilyn Carr, the respondent worker, was employed by Bridge Inn Nominees Pty Ltd, the appellant employer, as a cleaner at the Sportslander Motor Inn at Moama, New South Wales.

  2. On 23 August 2013, Mrs Carr was cleaning bathrooms at the motor inn when she slipped on a tiled floor and fell heavily on to her left side. Mrs Carr suffered a fracture of the neck of the left femur and minor injuries to her left hand and both knees. There is no dispute with respect to those injuries.

  3. Immediately after the incident, Mrs Carr was taken by ambulance to Echuca hospital. She was subsequently transferred to Bendigo hospital, where she underwent internal fixation of the fracture of the neck of the femur at the hand of Dr Husaini, locum doctor.  

  4. After four or five days Mrs Carr was discharged from hospital. Following her discharge from hospital Mrs Carr used crutches for 12 weeks. She alleges that due to the use of the crutches, and by reason of favouring the right arm, in addition to the impairment resulting from the fracture to the hip, she also suffered a consequential injury to the right shoulder.

  5. On 8 January 2015, Mrs Carr’s legal representative, Slater + Gordon Lawyers, made a claim for lump sum compensation in the sum of $18,700 in respect of 13 per cent whole person impairment, pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This claim was made in accordance with Dr James Bodel’s assessment of 13 per cent, recorded in his report of 5 December 2014 to comprise of six per cent whole person impairment in respect of the right upper…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bridge Inn Nominees Pty Ltd v Carr 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
[2015] NSWWCCPD 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bridge Inn Nominees Pty Ltd, the insurer, sought to review an arbitrator’s decision that it was liable for the medical costs of a claim made by the respondent, Mr Carr. Mr Carr claimed that he suffered a shoulder injury as a result of his employment with Bridge Inn Nominees. The insurer argued that Mr Carr’s shoulder injury was not caused by his employment, and that the arbitrator had failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central issues before the court were whether the arbitrator had provided sufficient reasons for his decision, and whether the injury claimed by Mr Carr was caused by his employment. The court was required to examine the arbitrator’s decision and determine whether it was based on relevant considerations and was open to the arbitrator to make. The court was also required to assess the expert evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the injury claimed by Mr Carr was caused by his employment.

The court found that the arbitrator’s decision was based on relevant considerations and was open to the arbitrator to make. The court found that the arbitrator had properly considered the expert evidence presented by both parties and had provided adequate reasons for his decision. The court found that Mr Carr had suffered a shoulder injury as a result of his employment, and that the injury was caused by the use of crutches and overuse associated with an accepted injury to his left hip. The court found that the insurer was liable for Mr Carr’s medical costs. The court noted that the principles set out in Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) and Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates were relevant to the assessment of the arbitrator’s decision and the expert evidence.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales confirmed the arbitrator’s determination of 11 August 2015, and found that the insurer was liable for Mr Carr’s medical costs. The court found that the arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for his decision, and that the injury claimed by Mr Carr was caused by his employment. The insurer’s application for review was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 11 August 2015 is confirmed.

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.