Callus v Apollo Window Blinds Pty Ltd

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Callus v Apollo Window Blinds Pty Ltd [2022] NSWPIC 330
APPLICANT:	Michael Callus
RESPONDENT:	Apollo Window Blinds Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Jacqueline Snell
DATE OF DECISION:	28 June 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - The applicant claims permanent impairment compensation payable under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 resulting from injury sustained in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia, right calf deep vein thrombosis and consequential injury to his low back in the course of his employment with the respondent; while it is not disputed the applicant sustained injury in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia, right calf deep vein thrombosis in the course of his employment with the respondent it is disputed he sustained consequential injury to his low back; Held – the applicant sustained consequential injury to his low back resulting from injury he sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent; the applicant’s claim for permanent impairment compensation is to be remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess whole person impairment resulting from injury in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia, right calf deep vein thrombosis and consequential injury to the low back.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant has sustained consequential injury to his lumbar spine resulting from injury sustained on 2 November 2018 in the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. The applicant’s claim for permanent impairment compensation payable under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 resulting from injury sustained to his digestive system (right inguinal hernia), right lower extremity (right calf deep vein thrombosis), nervous system (right ilioinguinal neuralgia and consequential injury to his lumbar spine, with a date of injury of 2 November 2018, as agreed or determined by the Commission, is remitted to the President for referral to appropriate Medical Assessors for assessment of whole person impairment resulting from these injuries. 3. The following documents are to be forwarded to the Medical Assessors with this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons: a. Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; b. Reply and attached documents; c. Application to Admit Late Documents dated 11 May 2022 and attached documents, and d. Application to Admit Late Documents dated 10 June 2022 and attached documents.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

At the time the applicant, Michael Callus (Mr Callus) sustained injury the subject of these proceedings, Mr Callus was employed by the respondent, Apollo Window Blinds Pty Ltd (Apollo) as a Branch Manager. Mr Callus commenced his employment with Apollo in approximately March 2013 and his employment was terminated on 14 August 2019.
Mr Callus claims permanent impairment compensation payable under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) for 35% whole person impairment resulting from injury sustained on 2 November 2018 in the course of his employment with Apollo.
The circumstances of Mr Callus’ injury are described in the following terms:
“On 2 November 2018, the worker was required by his employer to lift a bundle of blinds weighing approximately 20 kilograms from the floor and place them on a ledge. As the worker lifted the blinds, he felt immediate pain and collapsed to the floor, sustaining injuries to his right groin, right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal nerve, right lower extremity, peripheral vascular injury, subsequent pulmonary emboli, subsequent right deep vein thrombosis and consequential injury to the lumbar spine”.
Mr Callus’ claim for permanent impairment compensation is declined and he has been issued with notice dated 7 December 2020 in accordance with s 78 of the Workers Compensation and Workplace Injury Management Act 1998[1]. With the issuing of this notice Apollo has disputed Mr Callus sustained consequential injury to his lumbar spine and has disputed Mr Callus has achieved the necessary threshold prescribed by s 66 of the 1987 Act to entitle him to permanent impairment compensation.
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) at page 9.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether Mr Callus has sustained consequential injury to his lumbar spine, and
(b) the level of permanent impairment sustained by Mr Callus resulting from injury sustained on 2 November 2018 in the course of his employment with Apollo.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION (the Commission)

This matter came before Member Isaksen for teleconference on 20 May 2022. Mr Kospetas appeared on behalf of Mr Callus. Ms Scott appeared on behalf of Apollo. Ms Slade, a representative of EML, was present. Mr Callus was present.
With Mr Callus’ claim unresolved at teleconference, this matter came before me for conciliation/arbitration hearing on 20 June 2022. Mr Goodridge of counsel appeared for Mr Callus, instructed by Mr Kospetas. Mr Goodman of counsel appeared for Apollo, instructed by Mr Leeds, Ms Slade was present. Mr Callus was present.
At the arbitration hearing Mr Goodridge confirmed Mr Callus’ claim for permanent impairment compensation was confined to permanent impairment resulting from the injuries as outlined by Dr Dias at pages 4 and 5 of his independent medical examiner’s report dated 3 March 2020[2] (being injuries in the nature of “consequential lumbar spine condition”, “right inguinal hernia”, “right ilioinguinal neuralgia” and “right calf deep vein thrombosis”).
[2] ARD at pages 36 and 37.
Following my discussions with counsel I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence

The following documents were in evidence before the Commission and considered in making this determination:
(a)    ARD and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    Application to Admit Late Documents (AALD) dated 11 May 2022 and attached documents lodged on behalf of Mr Callus, and
(d)    Application to Admit Late Documents and attached documents dated 10 June 2022 lodged on behalf of Mr Callus.

Oral Evidence

Neither party sought to adduce oral evidence or cross examine any witnesses.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Brief review of evidence

Statement of Mr Callus

Mr Callus provided a statement dated 23 August 2021[3]. Mr Callus described the circumstances of injury:
“On 2 November 2018 I was required by my employer to lift a bundle of blinds weighing approximately 20 kilograms from the floor and place them on a ledge. I was required by my employer to do this physical task as we were understaffed. I was sorting and lifting bundles of blinds into installer bays for installers to collect and take to installations. As I lifted the blinds, I felt immediate, severe pain which caused me to collapse. As a result of lifting the blinds I sustained injuries to my right groin, right ilioinguinal nerve, subsequent pulmonary emboli, and consequential injury to my lumbar spine.”
[3] ARD at page 1.
Mr Callus said that after he reported the incident, he left work and attended on his then treating general practitioner, Dr Chow. Dr Chow referred him for an ultrasound which demonstrated an inguinal hernia in his right groin. With symptoms persisting, Dr Chow referred Mr Callus for review with Dr Oh and on 10 December 2018 Mr Callus came to laparoscopic mesh repair surgery under Dr Oh’s care.
Mr Callus explained:
“Following the surgery, I continued to be in significant pain in my right groin, which radiated into my right leg and up into my lower back. I also experienced difficulty walking due to my pain symptoms and ongoing disabilities. As a result, I have been walking with an altered gait which has caused me to sustain a consequential injury to my lower back.
Due to the worsening of my symptoms on 14 January 2019 I attended Concord Hospital and underwent a CT pulmonary angiogram. I was found to have sustained a right lower leg pulmonary embolus caused by Deep Vein Thrombosis following my recent surgery.”
Mr Callus also explained:
“As a result of my injuries and ongoing disabilities my mobility and walking continues to be significantly affected. I have a permanent altered gait due to the pain I experience in my right groin and right leg. Sometimes the pain is so severe that I am required to walk with a significant and noticeable limp, particularly after walking for any period of time, or travelling in a vehicle.
On 21 January 2020 I attended upon general practitioner, Dr Adam Ziade to discuss my ongoing back pain and difficulty with walking. Dr Ziade prescribed me with Endone to assist with my pain.”

Treating medical evidence
Dr Oh

Mr Callus came under the specialist care of Dr Oh following referral by Dr Chow, with initial review of 6 November 2018. Mr Callus came to laparoscopic right inguinal hernia repair on 10 December 2018. A number of Dr Oh’s reports[4] are in evidence.
[4] ARD commencing at page 38.
On review on 29 January 2019, Dr Ho noted Mr Callus had been troubled by “post operative pain significantly”, which had reduced his mobility. On review on 8 March 2019 Dr Oh described Mr Callus as remaining debilitated by his groin pain and “limping badly”.
On review on 17 April 2019, it appears Dr Oh returned Mr Callus to the general medical care of Dr Chow pending pain clinic treatment. Dr Oh reported at that time:
“His pain in the groin is pretty much the same and he is still significantly impaired in terms of his mobility from the groin pain”.

Concord Repatriation General Hospital

Emergency Department Discharge correspondence dated 14 January 2019[5] is relevant to the pulmonary embolus Mr Callus suffered. The correspondence relevantly reported a history of presenting complaint by Mr Callus which included “ongoing pain and poor mobility” since coming to surgical treatment on 10 November 2018.
[5] ARD at page 39.

Croydon Medical Centre

Mr Callus came under the general medical care of Dr Ziade who practices out of Croydon Medical Centre. The clinical records of the medical centre as of 22 September 2021[6] are in evidence. The clinical records demonstrate Mr Callus complained to Dr Ziade on 14 April 2020 about low back with reference to his pain having been present “since operation”.
[6] Applicant’s AALD at page 1.
On review by Telehealth on 28 September 2020 Dr Ziade noted Mr Callus had “ongoing back leg issues” and on review on 25 March 2021 Dr Ziade noted Mr Callus’ complaints included reference to his back. On review on 17 September Dr Ziade noted “condition unchanged … ongoing back leg and groin pain” and this notation by Dr Ziade was reiterated on review on 20 September 2021.
Dr Ziade issued a number of certificates of capacity relevant to Mr Callus’ capacity for work. It is evident from the certificates issued after Mr Callus came to surgical treatment on 10 December 2018 that Dr Ziade considered Mr Callus’ mobility to be significantly restricted. Dr Ziade made specific note in a number of the certificates of capacity he issued that Mr Callus had been limping when he came into consult with him at the medical centre.
In a letter dated 14 September 2021 addressed to Mr Callus’ solicitors, Dr Ziade wrote:
“Michael Callus has always complained of back pain as a result of his altered gait consequent to his workplace injury.
Consultations of 8/12/19, 21/1/20, 14/4/20, 25/3/21 all attest to this.
The diagnosis was chronic lumbar strain. No spinal scans were done, the patient been hesitant to do so. In my opinion his chronic back pain can be traced back to his workplace injury of 2 November 2018.”

Dr Garvey

Mr Callus came under the specialist care of Dr Garvey, following referral from Dr Chow. Dr Garvey has provided a report dated 6 June 2022[7] in which he relevantly noted of Mr Callus:
“He suffered a right inguinal hernia and had a laparoscopic repair on 10 December 2018. After the operation he felt pain and discomfort and a shooting burning sensation in his right groin rather like a foreign body. He spoke to his Surgeon about the problem because he could hardly walk at all, and was referred to the Northern Pain Clinic. Michael experiences shooting pain in his right testicle, stomach pains, numbness in his thigh and a tingling sensation in his right leg.
His operation was performed as a day only procedure and he was able to walk a little after the operation but he was favouring his right leg and thereafter spent most of his time in bed (after which he developed DVT in his right calf and pulmonary embolus in January 2019) or seeing Specialists.”
Dr Garvey formed the view Mr Callus was suffering right sided mesh inguinodynia as a result of the laparoscopic hernia repair surgery and said, “he needs to have the mesh removed and a non-mesh reconstruction performed”.

Independent medical evidence
[7] Applicant’s AALD at page 4.

Dr Thomson

Mr Callus was assessed by Dr Thomson in his capacity as independent medical consultant. Dr Thomson provided a report dated 12 August 2019[8]. He recorded his physical examination of Mr Callus:
“This patient appeared significantly disabled today with pain affected conduct which certainly appeared genuine to me.
He had an antalgic gait designed to minimise weight bearing on the right lower limb and at the right groin, there was a slight fullness, extreme tenderness to even light palpation to the extent that no more searching physical examination could be realistically undertaken”.
[8] ARD at page 53.

Dr Dias

Mr Callus was assessed by Dr Dias in his capacity as independent medical examiner. Dr Dias provide a report dated 3 March 2020[9]. It is evident from Dr Dias’ reporting he had significant medical information available to him at the time he prepared his report. Dr Dias reported a consistent of history of the incident occurring on 2 November 2018 and subsequent treatment under the care of Dr Chow and Dr Oh, including the laparoscopic mesh repair of his right inguinal hernia on 10 November 2018 and subsequent “complicated post-operative course”. Dr Dias relevantly recorded:
“Mr Callus also reports that as a result of his chronic right groin pain and sensory dysaesthesia, he has had difficulty walking, and subsequently developed chronic lower back pain (predominantly right-sided) over the course of the past 12 months or so, due to altered gain mechanics.”
[9] ARD at page 16.
Dr Dias relevantly reported of Mr Callus’ current symptoms:
“Mr Callus continues to suffer from severe right groin pain, moderate lower back pain and intermittent pain and swelling affecting his right calf on a daily basis.
…
Mr Callus struggles to walk for more than two minutes at a time or stand for more than five minutes at a time due to right groin pain.”
Dr Dias described Mr Callus as having walked into assessment “with a marked antalgic gait favouring his right lower limb.” Relevant to examination of Mr Callus’ lumbar spine Dr Dias reported:
“Inspection of Mr Callus’ lumbar spine was unremarkable on today’s assessment. He was tender to palpitation in the midline and in the right lumbar paraspinal musculature from the level of approximately L4 to S1 with tenderness to palpation extending inferolaterallly into the right gluteal musculature. There was moderate muscular guarding noted on palpation of these regions. There was no evidence of muscular spasm noted. Mr Callus was able to perform forward flexion of his lumbar spine to two thirds of the normal range. Extension of the lumbar spine was limited to one third of the normal range by pain and discomfort. Lateral flexion of the lumbar spine was limited on the right side to approximately one third of the normal range and on the left side to one half of the normal range by pain, stiffness and discomfort. Lateral rotation of the lumbar spine was limited bilaterally to two thirds of the normal range.”
Dr Dias’ diagnosis included “chronic left-sided lumbar spine pain, stiffness and discomfort, secondary to prolonged altered gait mechanics, as a result of his work-related right groin injury”, and in response to specific questioning Dr Dias accepted Mr Callus’ suffers from chronic low back pain, which he said is secondary to prolonged altered gait since coming to surgical treatment for his right inguinal hernia on 10 December 2018.

Associate Professor Truskett

Mr Callus was assessed by Ass Prof Truskett in his capacity as independent medical examiner. Ass Prof Truskett provided a report dated 9 November 2020[10]. It is evident from his reporting that Ass Prof Truskett was provided with medical information which included a copy of Dr Dias’ report. As did Dr Dias, Ass Prof Truskett reported a consistent of history of the incident occurring on 2 November 2018 and subsequent treatment under the care of Dr Chow and of Dr Oh, including surgical treatment on 10 November 2018. As did Dr Dias, Ass Prof Truskett noted Mr Callus’ post-surgical condition was not without significant complication in that he developed right ilioinguinal neuralgia and right calf deep vein thrombosis. Ass Prof Truskett reported of Mr Callus:
“He advised me that following surgery he would spend his entire day in bed and continues to do so. He would get out of bed only to go to the toilet or to eat.”
[10] Reply at page 5.
When elsewhere canvassing Mr Callus’ current activities, Ass Prof Truskett noted in part that Mr Callus “spends most of his time in bed”.
Relevant to Mr Callus’ allegation of consequential low back injury, Ass Prof Truskett reported:
“Approximately 2 months after surgery he began to experience back pain because he is unable to walk properly. In reality from his description, he would appear to do virtually no walking. The pain was in his lower thoracic and upper lumbar region. He has advised his Local Medical Officer, but no treatment has been offered.”
Associate Professor Truskett relevantly reported of Mr Callus’ low back symptoms:
“He experiences pain in his mid-back at the lower thoracic/upper lumbar region. This pain is present all the time and would score 8/10. It will get worse with movement and score 10/10, 2 – 3 timer per day. There is no radiation”.
Associate Professor Truskett noted Mr Callus to walk “with a limp involving his right leg”. He reported his examination of Mr Callus’ back:
“… there was no kyphosis or scoliosis. There was no loss of lumbar lordosis. There was no paravertebral muscle guarding. Power, tone, and sensation was normal except for loss of sensation as described in the upper thigh. There was marked reduction in back movement but no dysmetria. Back flexion/extension was only 1/8^th normal. Lateral flexion to the left and right was one-quarter normal. Rotation left and right was one-quarter normal”.
Associate Professor Truskett provided comment about Dr Dias’ reported examination of Mr Callus’ back:
“When examining his back noted tenderness from L4 to S1 which was different to that which was described today. He described muscular guarding which was not present today. There was far great back movement with flexion to two-thirds of normal, extension to one-third of normal and flexion laterally to one-third and rotation to two-thirds of normal. This was different to that which was seen today as there was limited movement but no dysmetria”.
In response to specific questioning about Mr Callus’ alleged low back injury, Ass Prof said:
“Mr Callus indicates that his back pain occurred some 2 months after his hernia repair. He blames this pain on his altered gait but also states that he spends virtually his entire time in bed. There was no contemporaneous indication that he had back pain. On these bases I do not believe that he injured his back in his work-related injury on 2 November 2018 nor do I believe there is any evidence that it is a result of his hernia repair.”

Submissions

Mr Goodridge and Ms Goodman made oral submissions, which I have carefully considered. I am grateful to counsel for the assistance provided to me in this matter. A recording of counsels’ submissions is available to the parties.

Determination
Consequential injury to the lumbar spine

Liability is not disputed for the injury Mr Callus sustained in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia and right calf deep vein thrombosis. However, liability is disputed for the consequential injury Mr Callus’ alleges he sustained to his low back.
Mr Callus has the onus of proving he sustained consequential injury to low back as a result of the injury he sustained on 2 November 2018 in the course of his employment. This is a question of fact and consideration of the factual evidence and medical evidence is required. In Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Limited[11] McDougall J stated:
“A number of cases, of high authority, insist that for a tribunal of fact to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, of the existence of a fact, it must feel an actual persuasion of the existence of that fact. See Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA; (1938) 60 CLR 336. His honour’s statement was approved by the majority (Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ) in Helton v Allen [1940] HCA 20; (1940) 63 CLR 691 at 712.”
[11] [2008] NSWCA 246 (Nguyen).
With allegation by Mr Callus that the injury he has sustained to his low back is a consequential injury, in Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Dioceses of Paramatta v Brennan[12] Deputy President Snell relevantly discussed consequential injury and said at [100]:
“There have been a number of Presidential decisions dealing with the nature of claims in respect of consequential conditions. The principles are described in several decisions, for example Moon V Conmah Pty Limited [2009] NSWWCCPD 134 and Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding [2012] NSWWCCP 8. It is unnecessary for a worker alleging such a condition to establish that it is an ‘injury’ (including ‘injury’ based on the ‘disease’ provisions) within the meaning of s 4 of the 1987 Act”.
[12] [2016] NSWWCCPD23.
It is important to recognise the injury Mr Callus sustained on 2 November 2018 in the course of his employment may have set in train a series of events that, if unbroken, provides the relevant causative explanation of consequential injury to his left shoulder. Relevant to this issue of causation of the consequential injury Mr Callus alleges he sustained to his low back, in Kooragang v Cement Pty Ltd v Bates[13] Kirby J said:
“The result of the cases is that each case where causation is in issue in a workers compensation claim must be determined on its own facts. Whether death or incapacity results from a relevant work injury is a question of fact. The importation of notions of proximate case by the use of the phrase ‘results from’ is not now accepted. By the same token, the mere proof that certain events occurred which predisposed a worker to subsequent injury or death, will not, of itself, be sufficient to establish that such incapacity or death ‘results from’ a work injury. What is required is a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain. As the early cases demonstrate, the mere passage of time between a work incident and subsequent incapacity or death, is not determinative of the entitlement to compensation.”
[13] (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; 10 NSWCCR 796 at [463] (Kooragang).
After he sustained injury on 2 November 2018 Mr Callus consulted with Dr Chow. Mr Callus was referred for specialist review with Dr Oh under whose care he came to laparoscopic mesh repair surgery on 10 December 2018, with notably complicated recovery due to right calf deep vein thrombosis and right ilioinguinal neuralgia.
Following his surgery, it is evident Mr Callus was significantly troubled by pain and disability, so much so that Dr Oh referred Mr Callus for pain management in or about April 2019 and in early June 2022 Dr Garvey diagnosed Mr Callus with mesh inguinodynia and recommended Mr Callus have the surgical mesh removed and a non-mesh reconstruction performed.
When Mr Callus presented at Concord Repatriation General Hospital in January 2019 he complained of poor mobility. When Mr Callus was discharged from the care of Dr Oh in April 2019, Dr Oh noted Mr Callus mobility remained significantly impaired. When Mr Callus was assessed by Dr Thomson in August 2019, Dr Thomson described him as “significantly disabled” and noted he had an antalgic gait “to minimise weight bearing on the right lower limb”.
Dr Ziade noted in a number of the certificates of capacity issued after Mr Callus’ surgery that Mr Callus’ mobility was “significantly impaired” and as early as 6 March 2019 he noted in such a certificate that Mr Callus was limping. While the clinical records suggest it was not until April 2020 Mr Callus complained of low back pain to Dr Ziade, which he said had been present since the surgery, in his report dated 14 September 2021 Dr Ziade confirmed Mr Callus “has always complained of back pain as a result of his altered gait consequent to his workplace injury” and provided opinion the back pain “can be traced back” to the injury he sustained on 2 November 2018. I have no reason not to accept Dr Ziade, particularly in light of the certificates of capacity he has issued which reference Mr Callus’ significantly impaired mobility and limping.
In his report dated 3 March 2020, Dr Dias reported that after surgery Mr Callus had difficulty walking and developed low back pain “over the course of the past 12 months or so, due to altered gait mechanics”. Dr Dias noted Mr Callus presented at assessment “with a marked antalgic gait favouring his right lower limb” and provided opinion Mr Callus’ low back pain was consequential to prolonged altered gait since his surgery.
In his report dated 9 November 2020, Ass Prof Truskett reported that about two months after surgery Mr Callus began to experience back pain because he was unable to walk properly. Ass Prof Truskett noted Mr Callus presented at assessment “with a limp involving his right leg”. Although Ass Prof Truskett reported Mr Callus attributed his back pain on his altered gait, Ass Prof Truskett did not believe this to be the case as Mr Callus reported he spent “virtually his entire time in bed” and “there was not contemporaneous indication that he had back pain”.
Following a review of the evidence as a whole and careful consideration of submissions made by both counsel, I am of the view Mr Callus has provided a consistent history of injury occurring on 2 November 2018 and sequelae, including an onset of low back symptoms after coming to surgical treatment on 10 December 2018 under the care of Dr Oh. Mr Callus attributed the onset of his back symptoms to his altered gait, as did Dr Ziade and Dr Dias. I accept Mr Callus has discharged the onus of proof required of him and I am satisfied Mr Callus has sustained consequential injury to his low back as a result of the injury he sustained on 2 November 2018 in the course of his employment with Apollo.
I prefer the opinion offered by Dr Dias to that of Ass Prof Truskett as Ass Prof Truskett’s opinion appears to be based on belief Mr Callus spent “virtually his entire time in bed” and there was no contemporaneous indication he had back pain While I accept Mr Callus’ mobility was significantly impaired following his surgery on 10 December 2018 and he may well have spent a notable amount of time in bed as a result, there is no doubt Mr Callus was also ambulant following his surgery. Mr Callus told Ass Prof Truskett that he rose in order to eat his meals and also to toilet, and it is also evident from the medical information that over time Mr Callus has attended a number of medical assessments and appointments, with practitioners noting on many occasion that Mr Callus was experiencing significant difficulty with his mobility, which included altered gait and a limp that favoured his right lower limb.

Permanent impairment

Liability is not disputed for the injuries Mr Callus sustained in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia and right calf deep vein thrombosis as a result of the incident occurring on 2 November 2018 in the course of Mr Callus’ employment with Apollo and I have determined he has sustained consequential injury to his low back.
Mr Callus’ claim for permanent impairment compensation payable under s 66 of the 1987 Act resulting from injury sustained in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia, right calf deep vein thrombosis and low back is to be remitted to the President for referral to appropriate Medical Assessors for assessment of whole person impairment resulting from those injuries.
I consider it appropriate that the following documents be forwarded to the Medical Assessors with the Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons:
(a)    ARD and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    AALD and attached documents, and
(d)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 10 June 2022 and attached documents.

SUMMARY

It is not disputed Mr Callus sustained injury in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia and right calf deep vein thrombosis as a result of the incident occurring on 2 November 2018 in the course of Mr Callus’ employment with Apollo and I have determined he has sustained consequential injury to his low back.
Mr Callus’ claim for permanent impairment compensation payable under s 66 of the 1987 Act resulting from injury sustained in the nature of right inguinal hernia, right ilioinguinal neuralgia, right calf deep vein thrombosis and low back is to be remitted to the President for referral to appropriate Medical Assessors for assessment of whole person impairment resulting from those injuries.
I consider it appropriate that the following documents be forwarded to the Medical Assessors with the Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons:
(a)    ARD and attached documents;
(b)    Reply and attached documents;
(c)    AALD and attached documents, and
(d)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 10 June 2022 and attached documents.

[2022] NSWPIC 330

28 June 2022